Posted on 05/31/2014 5:36:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Gawker published a piece on the neurological problems which might result in pedophilia, and naturally a lot of shock and disgust was triggered. The piece is titled Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex with Children. This isn’t something you want to click through to lightly. So fair warning. The neurobiological material did pique my interest:
“There was nothing significant in the frontal lobes or temporal lobes,” says Cantor. “It turned out the differences weren’t in the grey matter. The differences were in the white matter.”
“The white matter” is the shorthand term for groupings of myelinated axons and glial cells that transmit signals throughout the gray matter that composes the cerebrum. Think of the gray matter like the houses on a specific electricity grid and the white matter like the cabling connecting those houses to the grid.
“There doesn’t seem to be a pedophilia center in the brain,” says Cantor. “Instead, there’s either not enough of this cabling, not the correct kind of cabling, or it’s wiring the wrong areas together, so instead of the brain evoking protective or parental instincts when these people see children, it’s instead evoking sexual instincts. There’s almost literally a crossed wiring.”
The good news, according to Cantor, is that it if they can figure out how the wiring gets crossed, they might be able to suggest ways pregnant mothers can help ensure their baby is unlikely to be born a pedophile. “It is quite possible that one or more components of the process are related to prenatal stresses like poor maternal nutrition, toxin exposure, ill health, or poor health care,” he says. “If so, then improving health and health care in general may reduce the numbers of people vulnerable to developing pedophilia, as well as other problems.”
Fair enough as far as that goes. I think it is important to look at controversial and explosive topics objectively. You don’t always need to be objective about the issue at hand, or lack opinions, but you need to step back and analyze in a value-free manner on occasion. For me the confusing thing is that to my knowledge Gawker today takes conventionally Leftish stances on “nature vs. nurture” type issues. Would they post something by Steven Pinker defending the concept of robust behavioral differences between the sexes? So why are they sticking their necks out here?
In any case, I think the problem with the Gawker piece is that it doesn’t really come off as a cold and rational assessment. Rather, there is genuine sympathy for people who are afflicted with the mental disease of pedophilia. The author finishes:
The old adage is that the true mark of a society is how it treats the weakest in its ranks. Blacks, women, Latinos, gays and lesbians, and others are still in no way on wholly equal footing in America. But they’re also not nearly as lowly and cursed as men attracted to children. One imagines that if Jesus ever came to Earth, he’d embrace the poor, the blind, the lepers, and, yes, the pedophiles. As a self-professed “progressive,” when I think of the world I’d like to live in, I like to imagine that one day I’d be OK with a man like Terry moving next door to me and my children. I like to think that I could welcome him in for dinner, break bread with him, and offer him the same blessings he’s offered me time and again. And what hurts to admit, even knowing all I know now, is that I’m not positive I could do that.
I’m not a professed “progressive.” I can see where the author is coming from probably (and so can Jonathan Haidt)…but can my progressive readers get into his mind here? Does being progressive mean you can not take into account probability to any extent? That you need to treat people as singular individuals in even the most extreme cases? For example, in the case of a pedophile who has never acted upon their instincts one presumes that they could find social acquaintances who were childless. Many biological dispositions aren’t deterministic, they’re probabilistic. That means controlling or channeling them in non-destructive ways entails changing the situations and contexts one is placed it. That’s not unjust, that’s just common sense. You aren’t a bad person to think it is prudent that someone with pedophile urges should avoid developing close friendships with people with young children.
Many of my liberal readers and friends have expressed the position that if a hereditarian position was true for a range of issue that that would result in a lot of unpleasant normative and political downstream consequences. I’m generally skeptical of this position. I have plenty of hereditarian ideas, and believe it or not I’m not a hateful Nazi. But the response above to the possibility that pedophilia has a biological basis does make me reconsider. I’m not a neo-Freudian, so I had always assumed that this behavior and tendency had neurobiological roots. That didn’t make me any more sympathetic to individuals who committed unmentionable acts. The world isn’t fair, unfortunately.
Female pedophiles exist but there’s no scientific consensus...or is there?
To this day, no scientific proof has emerged that all/some homosexuals were that way at birth.
Mass murderers may be born that way too. No excuse. Hang ‘em high.
It’s obvious mass murders have less white matter in their head. So let’s excuse all of their actions etc. as well!
Almost all of the arguments against pedophilia went out the window with the conclusion of the gay marriage debate.
In less than five years the very same people with = stickers on their cars will be extolling the correctness of intimate adult/child relationships.
>>”One imagines that if Jesus ever came to Earth, he’d embrace the poor, the blind, the lepers, and, yes, the pedophiles.”
Luke 17:1,2 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
That’s what Jesus said, bro.
Not all homosexuals were born that way. Some got sucked into it...
Sad but true. The groundwork for the pedophiliazing of our culture has been laid.
So to a liberal, it’s probable that a white person is racist, but not probable that a pedophile will target their kid.
And threatening the safety of white people and children is an acceptable risk to protect their beliefs.
And between pedophiles and children, it’s the pedophiles who are the victims.
I think I’ve had just about all I can take today.
I hold that sexuality is very fluid in most people. Why do you think so many prisoners engage in homosexual relationships?
RE: Why do you think so many prisoners engage in homosexual relationships?
So, what happens after they leave prison?
“To this day, no scientific proof has emerged that all/some homosexuals were that way at birth.”
But it’s “accepted science.”
There’s also tons of evidence that blacks average 20 IQ points lower than whites, but it’s racist to consider genetics.
The “little ones” Jesus is referring to are not children, but believers. It’s a common diminutive, a term of endearment.
I see what you did there.
I am leading the charge for Chainsaw Justice in cases of pedophilia.
Who’s with me?
There is an inclination toward sin, but men choose to sin. Pedophilism is self inflicted. The same is true for sodomism. The downward course of the reprobate is described in Romans 1:18-32.
Look at the bright side if there is. The day that someone comes up with a pre-natal test that shows whether a baby will be born gay or not will be the same day that abortion on demand is outlawed in all 50 states.
“I am leading the charge for Chainsaw Justice in cases of pedophilia.”
Oh just shoot them at dawn the day after the trial and be done with it. No need to make a production out of this.
Others were simply over-analyzed.
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.