Posted on 11/28/2007 7:11:40 AM PST by Pharmboy
MRIs link pedophilia to problems in brain development For Immediate Release – November 28, 2007 (TORONTO) – Pedophilia might be the result of faulty connections in the brain, according to new research released by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). The study used MRIs and a sophisticated computer analysis technique to compare a group of pedophiles with a group of non-sexual criminals. The pedophiles had significantly less of a substance called “white matter” which is responsible for wiring the different parts of the brain together.
The study, published in the Journal of Psychiatry Research, challenges the commonly held belief that pedophilia is brought on by childhood trauma or abuse. This finding is the strongest evidence yet that pedophilia is instead the result of a problem in brain development.
Previous research from this team has strongly hinted that the key to understanding pedophilia might be in how the brain develops. Pedophiles have lower IQs, are three times more likely to be left-handed, and even tend to be physically shorter than non-pedophiles.
“There is nothing in this research that says pedophiles shouldn’t be held criminally responsible for their actions,” said Dr. James Cantor, CAMH Psychologist and lead scientist of the study, “Not being able to choose your sexual interests doesn’t mean you can’t choose what you do.”
This discovery suggests that much more research attention should be paid to how the brain governs sexual interests. Such information could potentially yield strategies for preventing the development of pedophilia.
A total of 127 men participated in the study; approximately equal numbers of pedophiles and non-sexual offenders.
The Kurt Freund Laboratory at CAMH was established in 1968 and remains one of the world’s foremost centres for the research and diagnosis of pedophilia and other sexual disorders.
***************
Exactly.
They tested 127 people. 1/2 of them were pedophiles. So that means they tested 63 pedophiles. On the basis of this very small test group they can't reach any of their conclusions. Perhaps it is only ugly, left handed, short pedophiles that got caught in the first place... Or they were the most bored in jail and were the only ones who volunteered for this study.
I have not made up my mind on either side. There must be a plausible explanation as to how on the one hand God said some actions are an abomination to Him if some people through no choice of their own are just born that way. Of course then we are also told that before Esau was ever born into this flesh age doing good or bad God hated him. So then perhaps the soul placed in these flesh bodies has an only known to God a prior history.
As I see it, science is moving in the direction that the orientation is wired in. That is, pedophiles have an orientation that makes them attracted to young children. That does not mean that they are helpless against it. Whether they act on it is their choice.
With philandering, again, I would say the temptation is wired in. Whether one acts on it is a choice. The role of "society" in creating philanderers is to either inhibit or encourage a temptation that is already present in a large percentage of the population.
That's my read of the lit.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and NARTH have researched this for years. Fact is, there are specific things that usually occur to trigger such disorders, and they usually take place before the age of 12, during the sexual latency period.
The APA is determined to find other answers, though.
“I think we pretty much all agree that a pedophile represents an ongoing danger. Therefore we are inclined to want long/life sentences. Does this change to some prison time, with release conditional on treatment?”
As you can tell, I’ve been thru the moral discussions on this one. In my liberal days, I was the first to argue pro-gay clergy while in seminary. Now, I see others using the same arguments I used 20 years ago, and I can’t believe that they are so horribly thought through today.
To answer that question... no. I once talked to the sex offender shrink at the State of Michigan Big House, and he said, “There are many people who should never be out of prison.” As with all sex urges, them might decline as the person gets older... then again, even at a reduced level, they are still there, even if only once a year instead of once a day.
“As I see it, science is moving in the direction that the orientation is wired in.”
Well, they’ve tried to find the “gay gene” (not to be confused with my gay friend, Gene) for 25 years now. They haven’t found it. The best that any medical person will tell me is that one has “tendencies”, akin to the “tendency” to be a couch potato. Certainly there is no overwhelming drive that forces us to have those sex acts as part of our hard wiring.
Still, like global warming, this is a political issue. If your research is based on the premise that we choose our sexual attractions (at some level, nurture vs nature, etc) then where would that idea land you? Thrown off of campus with no funding!
Agreed. Now.
BUT, if an effective treatment existed, that would change the calculus.
“if an effective treatment existed, that would change the calculus.”
That would mean that we’ve cracked the secrets of why we’re tempted to do sexual things. It would mean that we can “re-wire” gays and lesbians to be straight - can you see that moral discussion first time a parent takes little 14 year old Johnny in to the doc to make him straight instead of gay?
And, we could then abuse the knowledge. I’ve often said that I really should be bisexual, since it would double (or more than double, given the practices of gay men!) my chances at having sex. If I could, I’d be bi, have lots of sex, etc. Can you imagine if I could re-wire my brain to be bi just in time for a trip to Cancun?
Next question: Does abuse or trauma not effect white matter development? There is no hardwiring in the brain.
1.) Even if pedophiliac tendencies are "naturally occuring" due to a brain anomaly or defect does not make pedophilia right or morally acceptable.
2.) The same could be said about homosexuality. There may be species of animal life that have homosexual tendancies; however, this does not make it correct or morally acceptable.
There are a couple logical games at play. Firstly, the naturalistic fallacy (something occurs in nature, therefore, it must be acceptable or good). Biological processes for the most part are amoral. Secondly, if humans are reduced to merely animals then we would act on instinct through every aspect of life. However, the funny thing is choices require logic and that seperates us from the animal world by leaps and bounds... Every human behaviour cannot be reduced merely to animal instincts; and if these animal instincts are generally accepted as morally correct or right, we're doomed...
O come on, now... You wouldn’t be suggesting that low intelligence makes one more likely to be caught committing a crime, would you?
I’m told the Chinese character for ‘crisis’ consists of two radicals, the one for ‘dangerous’, and the one for ‘opportunity’
That is precisely what this could offer, a dangerous opportunity.
LOL! Busted!
“Can you imagine if I could re-wire my brain to be bi just in time for a trip to Cancun?”
Yeah think of all those lonely STDs you could pick up.
“Yeah think of all those lonely STDs you could pick up.”
Well, now you’re asking me to make choices about my behavior.
I thought that the premise of my post was that sexual behavior was all hard-wired, to the point where we can scarcely make the decision to use a condom? I mean, I can’t help what I am, right?
I’m born this way, so it can’t be wrong, correct?
By Jove, I think you’re on to something!!!
Yep - crisis in Chinese is “wei ji”, wei (first tone, no inflection) means danger, and ji (also first tone, no inflection) means opportunity.
But in Chinese, a crisis is usually bad; opportunity here is interpreted as negative because of the danger associated. This means it’s a bad happening, not necessarily an opportunity like we think! Remember, eating some hemlock gives you the opporunity to die; not guaranteed, but not the type of oppportunity I want to take!
“Well, now you’re asking me to make choices about my behavior.”
Are you asking if I’m pro-choice?
“I thought that the premise of my post was that sexual behavior was all hard-wired, to the point where we can scarcely make the decision to use a condom? I mean, I can’t help what I am, right?”
Depends on how much in government grant money we are talking about.
“I’m born this way, so it can’t be wrong, correct?”
If it makes you feel good to be right, then you are right.
I can't agree with you there. I have known many homosexuals who tried very hard to deny their overwhelming drive.
I don't know that anyone is still looking for a "gay gene," which I doubt exists. While I believe that homosexuality has a biological basis, I think it is less likely to be genetic than environmental. I think the most likely explanation is something in the mother's uterine environment that affects the brain development of the fetus in utero.
One could call this genetic only in the sense that it would be the mother's genes that would create this situation. But it would not be the genes of the affected individual.
I also see no reason why there must be a single explanation. If the above scenario is correct, it will not necessarily explain all instances.
I have no financial interest in this opinion. I do not do research in this area, I just read the literature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.