Pedophilia

---- Full Resolution ---- Society should take steps to more accept pedophiles. ---- Introduction ---- + I would like to thank my opponent for joining me in this debate, and I would like to thank the audience for taking the time to read this. Thank you. + I request that the audience please not give either side any sources, arguments, counterarguments, and that the audience please wait to do this after the debate has concluded. + I believe the definitions are straight forward. I don't feel the need to clarify anything, but if my opponent wishes to define the terms, I of course reserve the right to dispute his definitions. + I reserve the right to introduce new points in the second round; my opponent may do the same if he wishes. I request, however, that we both do not introduce any new arguments in the closing argument, because not enough time will have been provided to sufficiently discuss new points at that point. + In this debate, I make a distinction between "pedophile" and "active pedophile." I define a "pedophile" as anyone who has a sexual attraction to children, while I define an "active pedophile" as someone who actually acts upon those urges through encounters with children. ---- Argument ---- I often hear the following argument from right-wing Christian conservatives: "What the heck are you talking about Joe? Attraction is between a man and a women. A man and a women only. That's how God created it, and that's how he intends for it to be. These homosexuals are so unnatural — their sex organs don't even match up! But, hey, let's consider the thought for your benefit. If indeed there really exists such thing as predetermined biological orientation, where does it end? What about pedophilia?" I normally snicker with a cynical grin when I respond, "It doesn't end." I believe without a flinching doubt that pedophilia is a sexual orientation pedophiles are born with. That is, they cannot control their urges, and they most certainly did not choose to have those urges. Pedophiles do not see children as we see children. Pedophiles see them as any of the rest of us see our partners or crushes. Pedophiles see children just like a schoolboy/girl might see a teacher s/he has a crush on. Pedophiles are just like that — they can't control it. They just have an affinity for something society deems as inappropriate, because they were born that way. The scientific evidence proves this claim. In 2002, Canadian sexologists James Cantor and Ray Blanchard reported that pedophiles have lower IQs, score poorer on memory tests, have greater rates of left handedness, are generally shorter, and have differently structured brains. In 2006, it was reported that heterosexual male pedophiles have lower levels of testosterone. A 2008 study notes of "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing" . . . whatever that means. Point is: Pedophiles do not choose to be pedophiles. Pedophiles are born pedophiles; and because of their societally unfortunate predisposition, they will always be pedophiles. A question arises: Is it therefore okay to lock active pedophiles up since it's not really their fault anyway? Of course it is okay to lock active pedophiles up! The perspective view must default to the child who will be psychologically scarred for the rest of his/her life. Not to mention, the act of locking active pedophiles up is such a huge deterrent . . . imagine you woke up tomorrow morning to find that there were no longer any laws! You'd bet you'd be scared. . . . Locking pedophiles up certainly isn't fair, but it is the fairest thing to do. Another question, this time rhetorical, and asked to a pedophile: If you love children so much, certainly you would love them enough not to harm them? Pedophile answers by asking, "How does it harm children?" Indeed, this eighteen year old cutoff mark is astonishingly high when compared to the rest of history. Juliet (you know, "Romeo and Juliet") is supposed to be thirteen. In Ancient Greece, male homosexual pedophilia was unabashfully rampant. Today, many Eastern countries still marry off daughters as young as thirteen, twelve, eleven, and, yes, sometimes ten! So let's backtrack to when I wrote, "The perspective view must default to the child who will be psychologically scarred for the rest of his/her life." Let us imagine a world where pedophilia isn't taboo, a world where pedophilia is common and natural and even beautiful. (That was the world of Ancient Greece after all, wasn't it?) In this world, wouldn't pedophilia not psychologically scar a child? Wouldn't it even be a life enhancing experience for the child — to be exposed to sexuality at a young age — for sexuality not to be this mysterious thing that s/he just has to go and try unsafely? Now obviously practicalities must be noted of. For example, penetrative sex would most certainly harm children. But leaving those considerations for later, first consider this point: All these sexual taboos we have today are so unnatural — not the taboos themselves, but the being of them. I'm sure all of our first reaction to the notion pedophilia is, like, ewww. The reaction is shared by me too. But let's give pedophiles some slack. They didn't choose their orientation; and the very reason they are bad isn't because there is actually anything wrong with what they want to do, but because of our instinctive reaction to call them bad. Hopefully, as history moves forward, we can become more accepting of one another's sexual dispositions. Hopefully, as pedophilia becomes more accepted by society, the possible psychological trauma children might receive will lessen. Hopefully, a more accepting day will come.