A lot of people commit suicide as well, i wonder how tangible those benefits are... see how ridiculous that sounds? To make that statement you MUST PRESUPPOSE that human beings always make informed decisions, and indeed all human beings also know what is "best" for their wellbeing. The arrogance necessary, the anthropocentrism that is so deeply embedded in a statement that has the cause of many humans doing it to somehow be sufficient to lead to the effect of it being beneficial, is ASTOUNDING.

It seems to me to be a fundamental property of a proper communist nation that there would be no such thing as "wealthy." It's like asking "Would you live in an anarchist country if you could be president." Well sure, but then it wouldnt be much of an anarchy, now would it?

What could possibly be the point of holding an unfalsifiable "theory" (although lets be clear, that would at best be a laymen theory, not a proper scientific theory) such as a "God" existing outside of the walls of everything that we as humans can imagine, observe, or logically posit? To have a "personal theory" such as this seems the hight of both arrogance and laziness all rolled in to one.

And by the way, care to explain why your supposition, that it had to be something greater than us, has any validity whatsoever? Do you understand the logical absurdity of saying that since we're complex, intelligent, whatever that something MORE complex, intelligent, whatever had to have made us? Not only would the argument infinitely regress, but it would do so in an exponential manner.

You quite clearly read no further than the first paragraph of the link you cited. In fact, the wiki link actually gets in to the Krafft-Ebbing categorization which outlines the 3 proper types of pedophilia, each of which have quite different definitions.

These 3 "types" are A) Preferential, which is the "classic" laymen definition of pedophilia. B) Surrogate, which in short could be summed up as "taking what you can get." Of course its not quite as simple, but its generally a form of "settling" for a girl who is of the "proper" age of pedophilia desires. Finally, C) is Sadistic, which is of course fairly self explanatory. Basically about power and control and such more than sexual attraction. But again, to be clear thats simple in the interest of time (or more accurately, space).

So we get to your claim. A man, Muhammed in this case, had sex with as you say women both of what we might think of as "proper" age, and also young girls of what we would consider not. This fits definition A fairly well. Definition A pedophiles often live "normal" lives with proper aged girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, or wives. However, an outside observer would have no right or ability to properly claim which of these aspects of his or her sexuality was indeed their "preference." In fact quite the opposite of what you suggest, it is usually found after some study that someone who has relationships with both of age and not of age individuals usually has a "preference" for the latter. But i digress.

Number of sexual encounters is of little evidence either way. There is no correlation to be drawn there. It matters not which "way" is more common for the individual in question. This is not the way which you diagnose such a "disorder."

Finally, my purpose for defining more properly. Even barring what we might in this context call "Type A Pedophilia," the argument you have put forth says nothing against "surrogate pedophilia" where an adult will have relations with a child in abstentia of a more proper mate. This has NOTHING to do with actual "preference" as it is most commonly considered, however it is still very much legitimately referred to as "pedophilia."

I know i have run on, i hope i have shed some light on the faultiness of the logic you have employed :]