Why don't you go ask a geneticist, not a bunch of [mostly] idiotic people who through some stroke of fate managed to wind up in an era with internet access?
Sexual orientations tend to deal with the attraction based on biological sex and gender of humans (either centered around being sex/gender specific or a lack of being sex/gender specific). Pedophilia is more of a sexual fetish than an orientation: Being that sexual arousal comes from the situation of pre-puberty humans. Therefore, I do not think, genetically they are the same, since pedophilia doesn't even seem to be a sexual orientation. But for the hell of it, I'll pretend it is a sexual orientation, that perhaps on the very genetic, biological level they are both biological sexual attractions. Still, I find the information would be almost irrelevant to any debate or argument because it can still be ruled out by it's ravaging effect. I do think pedophilia is biological, but it's harmful and destructive nonetheless, and of course, for that reason cannot be allowed and needs to be treated as other disorders are.
Pedophilia is not gender specific, homosexuality is .
No, it is not. Ever heard of lesbians? Or did you confuse one with another?
Say what? Lesbians like their own gender. Lesbians are homosexuals. Therefore, the sexual preference is gender specific. It is the definition of homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) that the preference is gender specific. Pedophiles may be interested in their own sex, the opposite of their sex, or both. But no matter which gender they prefer, the preference is age specific (or perhaps more correctly "sexual development" specific) as opposed to gender specific.
homosexuality - sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex. Lesbianism is gender specific, only females can be lesbians. And lesbians are homosexuals. Lesbianism is gender specific, homosexuality is not.
If they are only interested in one sex than their preference is gender specific. It does not matter if they are male or female, the types of people they are attracted to is based around gender. The word "lesbian" is gender specific in the same way that "he" or "she" is, but that isn't what he meant. He was talking about the predisposition itself. Unless you are trying to make a joke, I don't get how you could misunderstand what he was saying.
You're not getting it. Homosexuality is not gender specific. Homosexuality can be divided between males and females and those two are gender specific, but homosexuality itself is not because it includes both genders. Neither pedophilia nor homosexuality are gender specific, because both genders can have them. Unless you are trying to make a joke, I don't get how you could misunderstand what he was saying. There is nothing to misunderstand. You are the one not understanding.
I actually understand what you're saying. Lesbianism is gender specific, while homosexuality is not.
Oh for Christ sake. Neither I or the above person said that only one gender can be homosexual. We aren't talking about the WORD, we are talking about the preference that word describes. The preference IS gender specific because those who have that preference are sexually focused on one gender. As a result, heterosexuality is also gender specifics because heterosexuals, whether male or female, are only attracted to specific gender. Bisexuality, however, would not be gender specific. This is debate attempting to determine the difference between two sexual preferences. Why would we discuss the trivial difference between the words "lesbian" and "gay" when we are talking about the practical applications of the word itself? What possible point would someone have in going that direction with this debate?
Neither I or the above person said that only one gender can be homosexual. Only women can be lesbians, only men can be gays (in case gay is only used to describe men), but they are all homosexuals. We aren't talking about the WORD, we are talking about the preference that word describes. Then why are you arguing? The word - the concept - is all there is to talk about. The word - homosexual - describes both genders. The preference IS gender specific because those who have that preference are sexually focused on one gender. Not if you are talking about homosexuality, but is if you are talking about lesbians or gays (gay in reference to men). As a result, heterosexuality is also gender specifics because heterosexuals, whether male or female, are only attracted to specific gender. Heterosexuality is not gender specific because both genders can have that. There are no man-woman and woman-man specific words needed because heterosexuality is the right sexual inclination. And even if there were, the words would be useless because if you turn the positions around you get the other one. Bisexuality, however, would not be gender specific. If you get this how can you not get the rest? Why would we discuss the trivial difference between the words "lesbian" and "gay" when we are talking about the practical applications of the word itself? I never discussed the difference between lesbian and gay but the difference between homosexual and lesbian or gay. The practical application of the word goes about both genders, meaning it is not gender specific.
Do you just completely ignore context when you debate? This is not a debate about semantics, but about the inclination itself, the differences between the two groups (specifically genetically). When the original poster made his comment, he was referring to the type of inclination. He wasn't talking about largely irrelevant differences based on gender. Considering the overall terms "homosexual" and "pedophile" could refer to either gender, that is not where we would be looking for differentiation. The differentiation lies in the person being attracted to. That differentiation, in the case of homosexuals and heterosexuals, is rooted in gender. Therefore, this inclination, is itself, gender specific BECAUSE THEY ARE ONLY ATTRACTED TO A SPECIFIC GENDER. Bisexuals are excluded from this because there is no gender bias in their selection. Conversely, the factor of demarcation for pedophiles is a strong attraction to children. Some pedophiles may be gay, or straight, or bisexual, but they are all pedophiles, and the gender bias is not a part of the definition. If we are looking for a difference, particularly a genetic difference, we aren't looking for the dictionary definition of a female homosexual, we are attempting to ascertain if there is a difference between homosexuals of either gender and pedophiles of either gender. I'm not sure how the original comment could have flown so far above your head. Did you not read the debate title?
Do you just completely ignore context when you debate? Homosexuals themselves are gender-specific but homosexuality is not. You completely ignore what I am saying. This is not a debate about semantics, You clearly need that. but about the inclination itself, The inclination homosexuality includes both genders. Said it so many times already. the differences between the two groups (specifically genetically). Pedophiles go for children while homosexuals go for adults of their own sex. In some cases there might be both involved. he was referring to the type of inclination. The type of inclination is homosexuality and it includes both genders, meaning it is not gender-specific. If you look at lesbianism then that is gender-specific. He wasn't talking about largely irrelevant differences based on gender. Then why say homosexuality is gender-specific if it includes both genders? gender-specific - limited to either males or females Therefore, this inclination, is itself, gender specific BECAUSE THEY ARE ONLY ATTRACTED TO A SPECIFIC GENDER He used the word homosexuality not homosexuals. Bisexuals are excluded from this because there is no gender bias in their selection. Bisexuals themselves aren't gender-specific. Bisexuality also is not because both genders can have it, not just one. Conversely, the factor of demarcation for pedophiles is a strong attraction to children. Some pedophiles may be gay, or straight, or bisexual, but they are all pedophiles, and the gender bias is not a part of the definition. Pedophiles may like either boys or girls or both. And pedophiles themselves can be males or females. Pedophiles are gender-specific, unless they like both. Pedophilia, the disorder, is not gender-specific. If we are looking for a difference, particularly a genetic difference, we aren't looking for the dictionary definition of a female homosexual, we are attempting to ascertain if there is a difference between homosexuals of either gender and pedophiles of either gender. Then why say homosexuality? The word is homosexuals he should've used. Words have a meaning for a reason! I'm not sure how the original comment could have flown so far above your head. Did you not read the debate title? I read the post and I saw a flaw. Something you clearly cannot see. In fact, you cannot compare the genetics of homosexuality and pedophilia because those are conditions, not the people having those conditions and the accordant genes. You can only compare the genetics of pedophiles and homosexuals because they actually have genes, because they aren't concepts. Words have a meaning for a reason. So one wouldn't call an apple a banana.
I am ignoring what you are saying because you are niggling on this tiny little technicality that is not relevant to the original point he made nor to this debate itself. The point he was making, clear as day, is that the people homosexuals are attracted to is a gender specific category. Not the case for pedophiles as a whole group. You fail to realize that the object being referred to by the tendency has a set of criteria independent from the subject who has the tendency. And that criteria is gender specific. If there is a genetic difference, this is a distinction that might help lead us to it. If all pedophiles were, say, homosexual, or if none were, or if no homosexuals were pedophiles, etc. these are things could give us a starting point to the discussion, assuming a genetic link to these things can be identified. You are creating this distinction between homosexuals as a whole and lesbians as a group that, in this conversation, would only be relevant if there was a different set of genetics at play. If that is what you are arguing, then by all means go ahead. That would be worth investigating if you have the right evidence. Sure words have meanings, and sentence structure has rules, etc. But people who uphold the tightest little technicality of linguistic propriety, people who I assume are doing so out of respect for communication, are doing more harm to the actual process of communication than good. They aren't respecting the actual thought being expressed or the implications of that thought. Language is meant to be a useful tool, not a straightjacket. Context and common sense are more helpful in conversation than whether or not your debate partner said "who" or "whom".
I've clarified it more than enough. This is my last argument. If you look at the original post you will notice there the word homosexuality... not homosexual. the people homosexuals are attracted to is a gender specific category Homosexuals yes, homosexuality no. But people who uphold the tightest little technicality of linguistic propriety, ... This isn't a little technicality. doing more harm to the actual process of communication than good. They are not doing harm, they are doing good. People need to know the right definitions, if they don't this right here is what happens. As I said, words have a meaning (meanings) for a reason. They aren't respecting the actual thought being expressed or the implications of that thought. And that thought can be expressed with precision, assuming the person knows the right words and what they mean. Context and common sense are more helpful in conversation than whether or not your debate partner said "who" or "whom". Even in context words must be used correctly.
Honestly...I simultaneously respect and despise people such as yourself: the respect is in the discipline and in the fact that you are more likely to make your point more clear than people such as myself can do. The despising? Well that comes from the fact that the world is in constant evolution. Those who have such a rigid adherence to what amounts to a basically arbitrary social contract as the laws of English language are those who demonstrate a static mindset in a reality that always changes. And that is pure folly. When you enter into a debate such as this and the only thing you have to offer is semantics...what are you offering at all? This language is one of the most bastardized, self-contradictory and malleable languages known to man and you choose to conform to arcane delineation of abstract concepts? Can you not think for yourself? Can you not see a color beyond the specific shade of green it is? Can you not stub your toe without wondering if "stub" is the accurate descriptor? You are the worst kind of fool. An intelligent fool.
I guess it wasn't my last argument... Those who have such a rigid adherence to what amounts to a basically arbitrary social contract as the laws of English language are those who demonstrate a static mindset in a reality that always changes. You don't know me at all, so do not attribute anything to me. The above is completely false in regard to me. When you enter into a debate such as this and the only thing you have to offer is semantics... As I have said before, words have a meaning for a reason. Using them in situations where their use is not correct is false. You should be grateful there are people who notice those flaws. what are you offering at all? Knowledge in regard to what is correct. In this case I noticed a flaw. This language is one of the most bastardized, self-contradictory and malleable languages known to man and you choose to conform to arcane delineation of abstract concepts? As I have already said many times, words have a meaning for a reason. If some people are incapable of using them correctly then it is their error, not mine. Can you not think for yourself? That's what I have been doing all along, not my problem you cannot penetrate all that. Can you not see a color beyond the specific shade of green it is? As I have said, words should be used correctly. I constantly see people using your in place of you're (you are) and it annoys me a lot (I'm not even a native English speaker...), is that not wrong? Yes it is. Those two words have different meanings. Can you not stub your toe without wondering if "stub" is the accurate descriptor? If I stub my toe I don't think about a word to describe it. It just happens and I move on once I've dealt with the pain. Unless I'm writing a story, in that case every word must be used correctly, as should in everyday life. Not using them correctly hints at lacking education, education everyone receives, or rather should receive, the same (more or less). If mistakes are not corrected how will people learn? You are the worst kind of fool. An intelligent fool. I'm not a fool.
First, allow me to apologize. I was drunk and got up on a soapbox. This issue does bother me a lot though. It is one thing if improper use of language causes you to misunderstand what someone is saying to you. If that occurs, you may certainly ask them to clarify themselves. However, two-way communication is not a one-way street. As active participants in conversation, we cannot and should not expect everything said or typed to us to be perfect, or to be exactly what the person was trying to say. We should be able to meet in the middle sometimes, use the context to help guide us. When we handcuff ourselves the the exact specifics of language, we may miss out on the poetry being presented to us. Or simply let an understandable mistake essentially control our perception. You don't know me at all, so do not attribute anything to me. The above is completely false in regard to me. You are right, I do not know you. However this is my observation of people who navigate linguistics in the manner you choose to. If this does not apply to you, perhaps you will show me otherwise some day. As I have said before, words have a meaning for a reason. Using them in situations where their use is not correct is false. You should be grateful there are people who notice those flaws. At the very best, you have an uphill battle ahead of you if this is how you normally operate. There are an almost infinite number of reasons why people may make mistakes in communication. Some will have to be corrected to further foster communication, but often, one can save time by navigating around them. And "I should be grateful?" For what? Somebody appointing him/herself as an enforcer for a language that has no official enforcement organization? For your arrogance? For potentially wasting both of our time? I constantly see people using your in place of you're (you are) and it annoys me a lot (I'm not even a native English speaker...), is that not wrong? Yes it is. Those two words have different meanings. If you know enough about the language to instantly recognize the mistake being made, obviously you know what they are trying to say. Communication has served its purpose and at that point you are allowing yourself to be annoyed over triviality that did not confuse you. Who would want to live like that? If you wish to express yourself perfectly in your own writing, I have no problems with that. I applaud you for it really. But if you cannot navigate around the inherent imperfections in communication, if you give more respect to the language than the person you are speaking to, well that is something I have a hard time respecting.
I was talking about the preference itself. One pedophile can like both men and women, but a homosexual can only like one. Note that I say a, meaning one.
Yes you say a, but which one is it? Can be either one. By saying a homosexual you aren't specifying the gender. Homosexuality itself does not differentiate men and women. Homosexuals themselves are gender-specific but homosexuality is not.
Yes. Pedophilia is not gender related, even though it is usually homosexual. Also, homsexuals are not necessarily pedophiles. Most LGBT people are attracted to people their own age.
Homosexuality is pretty much entirely genetic, whereas paedophilia is often influenced by events in one's childhood.
Homosexuality is genetic Pedophilia is a sexual fetishism
Unfortunally you've banned the most obvious answer. That thing you've banned, is acutally the big difference. I don't know why anyone would thing pedophilia and homosexuality has anything to do with each other. Homosexuality is a sexuality where you are attracted to the same sex. While pedophilia is a sick mental disease, where you have crazy thoughts about raping children, and sadly, those thoughts become real. How has that anything to do with anything?
While I, in no way, condone acts of pedophilia, I could say this: Pedophilia is a sexuality where you are attracted to children. Please keep all hostility out of this debate, and simply look at the facts. Pedophilia is a sexual preference, much like homosexuality. Both can't produce children (unless you're into pubescent children). Both are/were hated at one point for being unnatural.
Yeah that last part. Both were hated to be unnatural. Don't you think thats a little... you know. I mean that pedophilia, you mentally and probably physically hurt the child for life. Its not a good experience for the one who's raped. While homosexuality is totally innocent, considering they're not hurting each other (at least not more than straight people are) If the child and the adult were in love, I think it would be another case, still wrong, but then we confuse two different subjects. Do you get what Im saying? ;p Im not sure if I do myself.
It's funny how people literally can't stop mentioning the welfare of the child. Of course pedophilia is one of the most horrific crimes because it physically, emotionally, and mentally destroys a child. I'm talking about genetically.
Pedophilia is about power usually, nothing to do with sex. The sex is just the exertion of that power over another. The most important difference is that homosexuality is consensual and pedophilia is not. Pedophilia could more closely be compared to heterosexual relationships where the male is completely dominant over a submissive female, and where the female has no power internal or through law, to deny him. Which describes heterosexual relationships through most of history and even today in some places.
The most important difference is that homosexuality is consensual and pedophilia is not. This debate was about the genetics of the two, and if they're different or if they're just two different sexual preferences. Please refrain from mentioning the welfare of the child.
I prefaced the difference by stating that one is about sex and the other is about power. What are the similarities between the genetics behind dominance-seeking behavior and sexual behavior? You might as well compare the genetic similarities between one who likes the color blue and another who thinks cookies taste good. They are not the same thing. In addition, the comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality is a long-standing tactic for discrimination against a group of people. Therefore I feel perfectly justified in stating the difference clearly whenever this mistake is made and from whatever angle.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), it is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. Rapists are the ones who are about power and dominance. Pedophiles have a legitimate sexual desire for young children.
Merriam-Webster states that pedophilia is: "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object". It says that homosexuality is: n. "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex"
|
It really all depends, but they are just as genetically similar to homosexuals as they are to heterosexuals. Pedophiles are known to have low self-esteem and anti-social tendencies. Whether that's genetic or not is a case by case basis. Pedophiles, generally, are not much different genetically from you or me. There can be areas of sexual deviancy, but that is still a very unknown area.
I don't know why people wish there to be genetic differences between people of different sexual preferences, maybe it's an indirect attempt to distance one's self from them. There has been no isolated genetic sequence that is responsible for these behaviors and while genes can influence behavior they are not the arbiter of our actions. One important point to remember: Genes are inherited. This is a very clear and validated statement. Homosexuality and pedophilia do not lend themselves to reproductive success, for obvious reasons, and hence make it difficult to imagine them being genetically inherited. It would seem to me more pertinent to consider pedophilia to be an acquired mental illness, whether that be from life experiences, from some form of damage or under/over development in the brain, and homosexuality to be considered a consequence of misappropriation of hormones during fetal sexual differentiation.
To differentiate homosexuality from pedophilia (or from bestiality, necrophilia etc) is nothing short of intellectual hypocrisy. I have no control over my sexual preferences, which is more or less to a point determined by genetics. Certainly there are other factors as well. I do no not choose what I am attracted to and what I'm not attracted to - whether my object of attraction would be a female, a male, a sheep or in this case a child is completely outside of my control. We cherry pick which of these attractions are socially acceptable and which aren't, but ultimately they are arbitrary lines that are drawn from emotion and traditions, rather than consistent logic.
|
