A debate I had today. And last year.
Brought up at lunchtime today was a long forgotten debate about homosexuality and paedophilia. The shortened argument goes something like this:
All urges are natural. Being gay is an urge - the urge to become sexually active with the same sex. If being gay is an urge, and all urges are natural, being gay must be natural.
This seems alright until you introduce paedophilia.
All urges are natural. Being a paedophile is an urge - the urge to become sexually active with children. If being a paedophile is an urge, and all urges are natural, being a paedophile must be natural.
After posing this argument, I was met with the counterattack “But being gay is two consenting adults. The child doesn’t know what they’re doing.” This can be seen in two ways. The child doesn’t know what they (the adult) are doing, or the child doesn’t know what they (themselves) are doing.
So this argument hangs on the fact that there’s a certain age that children must be or surpass to know what ‘they’ are doing.
LET’S CONSULT WIKIPEDIA.
“Paedophilia is typically defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles. ”
“Hebephilia refers to the sexual preference for individuals in the early years of puberty (generally ages 11–14).”
“Ephebophilia is the sexual preference of adults for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.”
It seems the lines are becoming increasingly blurred. I’d like to emphasise here that I’m not talking about child abuse. Someone being raped by anyone of any age is morally wrong. I’m talking about consenting ‘underage’ children without any ‘grooming’ as they call it on the adult’s part.
If a 14 year old willingly entered a relationship with an 18 year old, that would be paedophilia. If the 14 year old entered a relationship with a 16 year old, that would be fine. Where are the lines? Surely the child’s mind doesn’t suddenly flip its “I KNOW WHAT I’M DOING” switch on or off depending on an additional two years of age on the partner’s side.
“The legality of hebephilic actions is a complex issue. In the majority of countries, sexual activity with pubescent minors is illegal. However, there are a wide variety of countries, such as Germany, Bangladesh, Angola, and South Korea, where the age of consent for sexual intercourse is 14 or lower. Depending on the age of the onset of puberty, this can make some instances of hebephilic actions legal in some countries.”
So it seems some people have different ideas of morality in different cultures. Kind of reminds you of homosexuality in the early 20th century and beforehand, doesn’t it?
Being gay used to be against the law and, as such, socially unacceptable. Nowadays it’s legal and considered amoral to be gay or not - it’s a preference. As soon as it becomes legal, it becomes socially acceptable. As soon as it’s illegal, it becomes socially unacceptable.
So, are paedophilia, hebophilia, and ephebophilia not preferences? Well, the second two are according to Wikipedia, and I can’t see why paedophilia shouldn’t be as well. There is something wrong with it, however.
I think rather than an age limit or mental switch as was argued, it’s the increased risk of damaging the younger person’s physical and mental health that makes paedophilia worse than the other two.
FBI incoming.