A MATTER OF BIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY

In the previous sections we have made a number of interpolations from mainstream pornography and into Child Pornography. A question thus arises: How valid are those interpolations?

The answer? Very. Consider the following points.

Sexual maturity

Purely from a biological and psychological perspective, there is no difference between legal age sexual preferences and under age sexual preferences or tendencies.

As any doctor and psychologist will tell you, sexual physical and psychological maturity varies widely from person to person. There is no mystical or magical age number which indicates, without failure, sexual maturity. As such underage preferences are simply a natural part of human sexuality which happened to have been outlawed. This is so because the concept of underage preferences is legally defined as being completely dependent upon the legal definition of the age of consent… which is entirely arbitrary and it does not even match the age of sexual maturity… which is individual and un-forecastable. Basically, sexuality is sexuality and there are no age distinctions.

Disease

Although it is clear in the medical profession that a preference for Child Pornography or paedophilia are simply natural preferences, they are nevertheless classified as "disorders" or "diseases" (depending of the literature). However, this classification is so only because such preferences may cause harm to oneself or others. The problem with this fact is that just about any behaviour can be classed as "disease" because it may cause harm (think nail trimming, for example). The obsessive nature of those preferences does not cause harm by itself. It is only when the harm is caused that those preferences should be classed as disorders or diseases. For a discussion of this topic, please see Wikipedia (Pedophilia) where some expert opinion is quite close to ours. In summary, it is our belief that the fields of psychiatry and psychology have been heavily tainted by legal concepts instead of staying true to medical conditions.

But isn't paedophilia classified as a "Disease"? If we take a look at the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) which is maintained by the World Health Organization, we can read the following:

"F65.4 Paedophilia: A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

Which would seem to indicate that paedophilia is indeed a disease of some sort. But does this make any sense? Let read some more from the same document.

Section F65 is titled "Disorders of sexual preference" and in it we find:

F65.0 Fetishism: Reliance on some non-living object as a stimulus for sexual arousal and sexual gratification. Many fetishes are extensions of the human body, such as articles of clothing or footwear. Other common examples are characterized by some particular texture such as rubber, plastic or leather. Fetish objects vary in their importance to the individual. In some cases they simply serve to enhance sexual excitement achieved in ordinary ways (e.g. having the partner wear a particular garment).

F65.1 Fetishistic transvestism: The wearing of clothes of the opposite sex principally to obtain sexual excitement and to create the appearance of a person of the opposite sex. Fetishistic transvestism is distinguished from transsexual transvestism by its clear association with sexual arousal and the strong desire to remove the clothing once orgasm occurs and sexual arousal declines. It can occur as an earlier phase in the development of transsexualism.

F65.2 Exhibitionism: A recurrent or persistent tendency to expose the genitalia to strangers (usually of the opposite sex) or to people in public places, without inviting or intending closer contact. There is usually, but not invariably, sexual excitement at the time of the exposure and the act is commonly followed by masturbation.

F65.3 Voyeurism: A recurrent or persistent tendency to look at people engaging in sexual or intimate behaviour such as undressing. This is carried out without the observed people being aware, and usually leads to sexual excitement and masturbation.

F65.4 Paedophilia: A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

F65.5 Sadomasochism: A preference for sexual activity which involves the infliction of pain or humiliation, or bondage. If the subject prefers to be the recipient of such stimulation this is called masochism; if the provider, sadism. Often an individual obtains sexual excitement from both sadistic and masochistic activities. Masochism. Sadism.

F65.6 Multiple disorders of sexual preference: Sometimes more than one abnormal sexual preference occurs in one person and there is none of first rank. The most common combination is fetishism, transvestism and sadomasochism.

F65.9  Other disorders of sexual preference : A variety of other patterns of sexual preference and activity, including making obscene telephone calls, rubbing up against people for sexual stimulation in crowded public places, sexual activity with animals, and use of strangulation or anoxia for intensifying sexual excitement. Frotteurism. Necrophilia.

F65.9 Disorder of sexual preference, unspecified: Sexual deviation NOS.

So, based on this classification, if you happen to enjoy your sexual partner dressing up in a sexy outfit, or you enjoy dressing up as your partner or cosplay, or you enjoy watching your partner in the performance of sexual activities or if you enjoy being controlled or controlling your partner or you enjoy any other sexual activity which is not strictly mainstream sex (in layman's terms wham-bam-thank-you-mam) you have a disorder of sexual preference or you may possibly be a sexual deviant!!! Do you consider yourself a sexually diseased person or a sexual deviant?

How nonsensical is this concept?

These kinds of classifications are remnants of a very old way of thinking. If something is not within one standard deviation of a measure it is either evil or a disease. The issue here is that these kinds of behaviours, although they are not typical, they are not diseases either. They are preferences as the ICD-10 clearly states. Look again at the section title of the ICD-10: "Disorders of sexual preference". Have you spotted the massive problem yet? If the issue at hand is a sexual preference, as this is a personal preference, the only way such preference could be a disorder is if it does not coincide with the preference of other people… which are also personal and subjective. In other words, they are comparing personal preferences against personal preferences and determining, arbitrarily, which ones are disorders and which ones are not.

There is a difference between a person with a sexual preference who does not want it anymore and it is seeking professional help to that extent, and being labeled as having a "Disorder of sexual preference" just because you have a certain preference which you enjoy. In the former, you determine that you have a disease through your subjective judgement. In the latter, you determine that you do not have a disease, also in your subjective judgement.

In this sense, a preference for Child Pornography or paedophilia are not diseases, but simply sexual preferences which have been outlawed.

In this sense, as paedophilia is classed together with Sadomasochism under "Disorders of sexual preference", this further strengthens our argument that our interpolations from mainstream pornography are valid.

Physiological differences

But physiological differences have been observed in convicted paedophiles. Wouldn't this indicate that paedophilia is indeed a physiological "disease"? In a nutshell, no. The answer comes in two parts.

The first part is that the number of studies on convicted paedophiles is so small, that all the gathered information can be thought of as purely circumstantial. Furthermore, from a statistical perspective, the sample is not random. As such we suspect that there is a massive bias in it as it only represent the worst class of paedophiles, who are so brazen as to invoke massive investigational efforts.

The second part is that when certain tests were administrated to "normal" people, their underage preferences showed correlation with certain physiological or biochemical markers. Which begs the question, how exactly is this of any value? We know that brain biochemistry changes enormously even when subjected to minor emotional events. The response captured by those researches only indicates that their physiological or biochemical responses to certain preferences may be somewhat different from other people's. Responses that will also be different for other people and for other preferences. In other words, at which point can we say with scientific certainty that certain responses are markers of underage preference? The answer is that with the current science, we can't. We have no idea why there may be some correlation, if that correlation is specific or even if there is a threshold or if the threshold is even meaningful.

Therefore and based on current scientific knowledge within mainstream science, we cannot conclude that paedophilia is indeed a physiological or biochemical disease, same as mainstream pornography.

Historical precedents

Furthermore, if we look back into history, we will realize that what we consider paedophilia today was common, accepted practice then. In the past children as young as 9 years old (or sometimes even younger) were married with the blessings of the church and the state. Sexual activities were prevalent at very young ages. We can still observe these behaviours in tribes which have not been heavily contaminated by our modern civilization.

And yes, we have noted the argument that back then life expectancy was shorter and thus they used to marry at a younger age to compensate for this fact. We disagree. Can you imagine somebody in the Middle Ages or earlier times looking at actuarial tables and determining based on that statistical information that they better get a younger bride? Of course not! It is a ridiculous concept! They wanted what they wanted because they had personal preferences. Everybody was doing it and thus everybody continued doing it. In layman's terms, they were horny bastards! Again, if we determine that paedophilia is a disease, then all the people up to about 200 years ago were paedophiles! We descend from a society of paedophiles! How about that?

If our society had this preference and prevalence then, it is extremely unlikely that we have evolved out of it over the last 2000+ years. Evolution is not nearly that fast. This is exactly the same type of preference and prevalence towards mainstream pornography. Yet another argument supporting our point of view.

Genetics

Purely from a genetic perspective, we evolved in such a manner as to have a hard-wired drive in our brain to spread our genes around as much as possible. This implies to have sex with a female which is as fertile as possible as soon as possible. This means that fertility and not sexual maturity (which seldom coincide) is what our brain has evolved to be predisposed to. Again, from this perspective, preferences for Child Pornography or paedophilia are nothing more than the expression of our natural evolutionary tendency and not diseases; same as mainstream pornography.

The Orgasm Argument

Current scientific knowledge indicates that children experience orgasms by genital stimulation at a very early age. It is currently a matter of debate as to the purpose of such natural tendencies, but one thing is clear. They do have a stimulatory effect on other people with an enhanced predisposition for such preferences. In other words, for unknown reasons nature has decided through evolution that children will be capable of stimulating certain adults. From this perspective too, a preference for Child Pornography or paedophilia are not diseases. They simply follow the natural evolutionary pattern present in all of us which is identical to mainstream pornography. Thus interpolations are valid.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to provide even more supporting evidence in this are but we believe that we have made our point. Our interpolations from mainstream pornography and into the preference of Child Pornography and paedophilia hold.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.