By: Fredric Rice
To: Steven Saus
Re: Rape of children

FR> Jim is lying and Preston is being somewhat inaccurate.  In actual fact
FR> it is the youthful morphology of children which motivates the behavior
FR> of pedophiles, not the sex gender of the children they victimize.
FR> When a Christian priest rapes a boy, it can't be considered 'homosexual
FR> rape' any more than if the Christian priest rapes a girl it can be
FR> considered 'heterosexual rape.'

ss> Herm.  You confuse me slightly here, sir.  For me, the quintessal
ss> question is "Can a child be realistically expected to give informed
ss> consent?"  Given that this is my criteria, the later teens are MUCH
ss> more of a gray area than the early teens, with a break-point around
ss> 16 for myself (as what I consider "age of consent" should be).
ss> Is this what you speak of here?

No, I'm saying that the distinction of homosexual vs. heterosexual
behavior doesn't factor into the issue when it's a matter involving the
sexual moslesting or rape of children.   The child's consent doesn't
factor into the equation either.

Statistical data indicates that heterosexual males rape boys in higher
number than in any of the other six groupings (boys vs. girls raped by
male vs. female being homosexuals vs. heterosexuals.)  This is because
the youthful morphology of children motivates behavior, not gender.

FR> It was only about 200 or 300 year or so that humanity routinely fucked
FR> and reproduced around the age of 13 or 14 and society considered it to
FR> be acceptable.  Infant mortality was high due to the immatureity of the
FR> parents yet such infant mortality was acceptable.

ss> IMHO, knowing that such a mortality rate is the end result is cause
ss> enough to discourage it strongly - even without the other
ss> ramifications;  much like the possiblity for birth defects is
ss> (IMHO) the driving force behind incest taboos, and should be
ss> taken into consideration more than actual physical relationship.

As I recall, the number 1 reason for reproducing is ironically enough
overpopulation.  We look at third-world shitpots where the infant
mortality rate is like 70% and we ask why people are still breeding.
It's because the misery of their sexually-productive lives finds its
best solace in sexual behavior.

Someone also told me (or perhaps I read it in a National Geographic)
that people in the Old West had children early so that they could
assist on the farm.

FR> Most of society seem to perfer mature sexual mates.  Pedophiles aren't
FR> looking for reproducing sexual mates, however...  they're driven by
FR> the desire to practice sexual behavior upon the young irresepective of
FR> reproduction.

ss> See, this goes against your potential hypothesis of a genetic
ss> imperative for evolutionary reasons.  Between this and
ss> reproductive rates, it's clearly a non-functioning adaptave
ss> behavior, even if it IS genetic.

I'm not so sure it detracts from my hypothesis.  Dolphin males and females
exhibit sexual behavior resulting in coitus even though neither are mature
functionally for reproduction to take place.  I think it's done for exactly
the same reason kittens play fight: it's educational and gets them ready
for when they engage in the real thing.

I'm also thinking that our societal predilections have been modified
through social pressure which is itself caused by medical and social
sciences which have elongated the human lifespan.

You're wondering whether a genetic predisposition towards pedophilia
should have been bred out of the populace already.  The same question
is asked of homosexuality.  The reason why it has not for both of these
cases is because both are fully capable of reproducing and both _do_
reproduce.

FR> I hate to suggest that pedophiles are exhibiting genetic traits since
FR> some people might claim that they shouldn't be held responsible for
FR> their actions.  The fact is, however, that _any_ genetically-based or
FR> environmentally-based behavior which adversely impacts upon the health
FR> or safety of any other individual is grounds for criminal liability.
FR> If a genetic predisposition exhibited by behavior harms no one, then I
FR> have no compunction against pronouncing the behavior "okay."

ss> You sum up my viewpoint well here.

Yeah, and most of the rest of the world.  It seems that here in the
United States we have a large number of religiously sick individuals who
would like to ban sexual behavior which harms no one.  And ironically
it's the people who feel the desire to engage in that behavior.

---
 * Origin: Xians aren't forgiven 'til their victims forgive them (1:218/890)