DrmDoc

So, from the perspective of a child, what you were forced to do wasn't fair and you resented it. Correct? Your recollection of your childhood experiences suggests that you are able to empathize with the plight of children unwilling subjected to experiences beyond their years of maturity. Yet, despite your unfavorable childhood memories, you see no harm in forcing a child to engage in sex acts with an adult. Is that what your experiences have taught you? That a child is merely chattle and being an adult, like might, makes right any and everything a child is forced to do including sacrificing its life? Agreed, but does that make everything an adult forces a child to do right? No doubt the skating lessons you took to please your parents were torturous and, perhaps, your parents understood that. Although they forced you to do what pleased them, they probably, like good parents, thought you would benefit later from what you learned as a child might benefit from music or dance lessons. However, that is not the mindset of a pedophile. They do not engage children in magnanimity or with a genuinely objective thought of what is best for the wellbeing of the child. Instead, they use their position of authority and dominance selfishly over the protests, naivety, and powerlessness of the children subject to their will. As to what we should consider "intrinsically truly horrible and damaging" to a child, shouldn't that necessarily include anything and everything a child is not mentally, emotionally, and physically prepared to endure?

Protesting what you consider "arbitrary" laws does not directly address--as is your usual--my very simple queries. So I say and ask again:

You were pressured into activities by your parents for their gratification? You seem to remember the pain you suffered and, no doubt, you felt powerless to stop what you endured. You had no ally to intercede on your behalf because what your parents were forcing you to do was considered legal and your acquiescence to their pressure was considered consent? In your mind at the time and from your perspective as an adult was it right what they made you endure? Because an activity is legal and acceptable to a child's parent, should we always consider that activity acceptable? In ancient Peru, for example, child sacrifice was considered a sacred and acceptable ritual. Would you find such a ritual acceptable in present-day if the practive was still acceptable to the Peruvian people?

If a society permits sexual contact between an adult and 8 year old child, does this suggests that the 8 year old is capable of consenting to that contact? If so, what is the earliest age, in your opinion, that a child is able to make informed decisions without the influence, urging, or coercion from an adult?

You provided Kinsey's study of infant sexual stimulation as evidence of sexuality among children. Essentailly, he had to engage acts of pedophilia--engage in some sexual contact with a child--to get his results. His study would have had more weight if he could have shown infants becoming aroused without researcher intervention. An erect penis and vaginal secretions in infants resulting from stimulation by an adult are not necessarily evidence of sexual arousal in infants and are decidedly not evidence of an infants readiness for sexual contact with an adult. As an infant or prepubescent child? Precisely, how old were you? As I recall, this discussion regards sexual contact between adults and children. That taste buds analogy regarded the lack of physical readiness among prepubescent children for such contact in the way that an newly born infant is not physically ready for solid food although its taste buds can be stimulated by such food. Consider my comments in the context of your reply regarding your hands continually in your diapers as a child. If you were a circumcized child, the additional attention and care your penis recieved as a child "provides one likely explanation why you may have found intimate stimulation particularly soothing as a child." Diddling one's private parts as a child is no more evidence of sexual awareness at a young age than is thumb sucking. Are you saying that as a infant or prepubescent child you were able to articulate your sexual desire to adults? That you were interested in adults? How might such an attraction for adults evolve into an attraction for children upon reaching adulthood? We are getting nearer to what I mean by empathizing with children. I disagree; rape is an act of dominance wherein a person in a position of authority and influence uses that position to cajole, urge, or otherwise force the cooperation of the naive and/or vulnerable. Sexual awareness does not confer the sexual maturity or understanding of an adult. Prepubescent children, not teenagers, who engage in sex play likely do so because of some prior underlying, adult influence. If such a child is sexually active, this is not sufficient evidence that the child is motivated by an adult yearning. You have yet to directly address any of my questions or show that you have any understanding of children except from the position of one who takes pleasure in violating innocense. Even R, the person who began this thread, declared sex acts with children as wrong. What are you declaring?

In your review of Kinsey's study, did the infants take the initiative and stimulate themselves or were they stimulated by the researcher? If stimulated by the researcher, how does this differ from acts of an adult who initiates sexual contact with a child? With pedophilia, isn't always the adult who initiates sexual contact with a child rather than the opposite? Although our taste buds, as infants fresh from our mother's womb, were receptive to solid food, we were not physiologically; although you were born physiologically sensitive to initimate touch, you were likely not physiologically prepared for sex with an adult, which is what we are attempting to discuss here. If you were circumcized as an infant male, your intimate area probably required additional care and attention. That additional care and attention provides one likely explanation why you may have found intimate stimulation particularly soothing as a child. This is akin to the case of a young man, whom I knew from his infancy, who had a foot fetish. I later learned that his mother engaged him continually in a game that involved tickling his feet with her nose when he was an infant. In a case involving a female, she experienced a severe rash as a child and also required extra care that may have influenced her sexual inclinations and expressions as a child. In each of these cases, the child was not the intiate of the intimate contact but was most likely influenced by the contact, which is the position where we will inevitably arrive in our discussion of pedophilia--the submission of the most innocent and vulnerable among us to sexual violations exceeding their will or ability to stop. Sex play among children isn't the same as an adult inserting him or herself into those games. In that play, the children are likely mimicing what they've observed among adults and do not seek-out and drawn adults into the play. What I've observed in the comments of R and Marat is what I've found among the cases I've reviewed on this subject, which is an inability or unwillingness to empathize with the victims of pedophilia. Rather than as victims, pedophiles perceive the children they encounter as willing participants imbued with some adult intent, curiosity, and desire likely beyond their maturity. Pedophiles can't empathize or see themselves through the eyes of a child who is subject to the sexual will of an adult because they likely did not crave that experience. If the oppoisite were true--that they did desire sexual contact with an adult--that desire would persist into adulthood and they'd desire adult sexual relationships. If it is true that they always were attracted to children, then they would understand how abhorrent it is for a child to be forced into a relationship with an adult. This is like a male homosexual forced into a hetersexual relationship when what he truly desires is to be with a male. If a pedophile was born "oriented" to children, then that pedophile would have felt violated as a child when subjected to the sexual will of an adult. If you have been sexually attracted to children all your life, then you should understand what your life would be if you were forced into a sexual relationship with an adult. If, however, you would see no violation in you as a child involved with an adult, then you should continue to be involved with adults although you are no longer a child. So I ask again, when is sexual contact between a child and adult considered censensual not rape?

And how old were you then? Were you a prepubescent? If so, what led you at that early age to take the initiative? For example, were you exposed to sexual imagery or media before you initiated that behavior or are your earliest memories filled with desires to initiate and engage sexual behaviors before you understood what they were? If so, how did you articulate your desires without understanding what they were? As a teen, you may have had a curiosity; as a prepubescent, however, such curiosity seems unlikely.

When a young person cannot think for him or herself and is totally reliant on an adult to survive, can that person willing consent to sex with that adult without the adult's urging? If so, how is it possible when the child is incapable of making informed decisions? Imagining yourself as a 6 or 7 year old child without the experience and knowledge you have now, do you think you would willing approach and engage an adult in sexual activities without the adult leading or asking you to do so? If so, were you that sexually mature as a child?

You did not answer my question, so I will ask again. Is it acceptable for an adult to engage a prepubescent child in sexual behaviors exceeding that child's level of physical, mental, and emotional maturity? I've underlined adult because prepubescent children do not willingly engage this behavior without the influence, urging, or coercion of an adult. This is unlike a child able to engaging in business endeavors. These are children who are clearly vulnerable to adult authority and influence. You are speaking about sexual abuse, which is traumatic for adults too. Marant was speaking about consensual sex. Although I'm still waiting on your reply to my prior post, perhaps you could answer: When is a prepubescent child able to consent to sex with an adult? In other words, can a person who is physically, mentally, and emotionally immature, whether adult or child, willingly consent to sex without influence, urging, or coercion from an adult?

You have not replied to my post...have you abandon our discussion? Adolescent boys, perhaps it was considered normal; however, prepubescent boys, it was likely not. Is it your opinion that it is acceptable for the adult members of a civilized society to engage prepubescent children in behaviors that exceed their sexual maturity? If so, what affect, if any, might this behavior have on the overall wellbeing of the society's youngest, most vulnerable members?

How pedophilia impact the life, mind, and emotion of both children and society. And then there's this exchange: So, not all pedosexuals molest children; however, those who do molest children chose them because of their "orientation." Is that correct? When is sex between an adult and child not considered rape? Among all your statements, this is the first time you've made such a direct declaration...interesting. Do you understand why they are wrong? And then again, there is this exchange: Perhaps you didn't understand my use of the words, "by proxy." Whether or not a pedophile or pedosexual pays for child porn and whether that porn is home-made, that individual is engaging vicariously in the sexual violation of a child. When an individual derives pleasure from pornographic images of children, that individual is deriving pleasure from the sexual molestation of children. Although the pedosexual may not be the abuser, the actual abuser becomes the pedosexual's agent when the pedosexual views the abuser's pornographic material. In your words, "Sexual acts with children are wrong". Are you suggesting that "home-made" material involving sexual acts with children are acceptable? Have you any testimony from children who willingly—without adult influence, urging, or coercion—engaged in sexual contact with an adult? If you do, is it likely that a prepubescent child has the sexual maturity in mind, body, and emotion to independently and deliberately initiate such behavior?

To which I have written: You have only espoused views supporting pedophilia as an "orientation," which is indeed one-sided. I was asking if you considered the sociological/psychological impact and implication of this "orientation". Review my comments and you will find that I have expressed no such belief. So here you are making the distinction that a "pedosexual" differs from a child molester in that a true pedosexual does not have sex with children. Is that correct? If so, why wouldn't he? If the behavior is merely an innocuous sexual orientation, why would or should a pedosexual restrain himself? If I understand correctly, having sexual congress with adults and viewing child pornography are ways a true pedosexual calm his desires? How does viewing pornographic images or other sexually explicit media involving children differ from direct sexual contact? Isn't this child molestation by proxy? Homosexuality does not lead to man-rape as pedophilia to child molestation does invariably. Invariably, either directly through contact or indirectly through media viewing, a child must be molested to satisfy a pedophile's sexual desires. Then how does one know that he is sexually attracted to children? Isn't arousal a sexual act? Are you now suggesting that there could be an indirect link? So, if I understand correctly, the "sexual orientation" label is not an attempt to legitimize pedophilia? Is it your opinion that sexual acts between adults and children can or should be legitimized? As I wrote: Although the referred site was part, my comments regarded our discussion and my impression of bias in your perspective. Shouldn't there be? If I understand your perspective, "pedosexuality" involves behaviors that cannot be acted upon directly and if ever a child is involved in satisfying the pedosexual, that should be consider behavioral aberrance. Without a legitimate outlet for the expression of their sexual desires, wouldn't therapy ameliorate what is obviously a frustrating compulsion?

And this is a science forum rather than a platform for one-sided discussions of topics with tremendous sociological and psychological impact and implications. If we are discussing science rather than some effort to building support for one's personal predilections, then an exchange of perspectives on the sociological and psychological effects of a behavior or "orientation" is indeed part of the science in our discussion. If you understood my use of the term "analogous," you would know that I was not referencing pedophilia as murder but was attempting to draw a cogent comparision between a behavioral aberrance and its sociological/psychological impact. In relative terms, a discussion of the potentially severe social and psychical impact of a behavioral aberrance is a siginificant aspect of our discussions as responsible scientist. You are referencing a site that clearly lack objectivity in its content and goals. A balance discussion should ideally encompass both sides of an issue. You seem to have taken one side, whereas, I am seeking your perspective of the other. Beyond morality, this "orientation," if acted upon, has sociological and psychological implications exceeding most others in that it compels behaviors that ultimately do not serve the lasting wellbeing of either the oriented or the subjected. Therefore, our discussions should include therapeutic remedies.

By "sexual orientation" you are indeed describing that which arouses sexual desire and congress. In analogous terms, is a murderous act and its repercussion irrelevant to our discussions when its perpetrator is compelled by sexual desire? Is the sexual abuse of a child truly inconsequential to our discussions? As I previously commented, "...you seem to be interested only in discussions that engender support for pedophilia. Have you no thoughts, comments or care regarding the children?" Well, have you?

Should we consider pedophilia acceptable behavior because of this "orientation" label? Does "orientation" legitimize or justify pedophilia? Homosexual and heterosexual behaviors differ from pedophilia in that they ideally require willing, sexually mature participants. Have you any data regarding the sexual "orientation" of prepubescent children towards adults without adult influence or coercion? Have you reviewed any studies regarding the affects pedophilia has had on children subjected to this behavior? Rather than an objective inquirer, you seem to be interested only in discussions that engender support for pedophilia. Have you no thoughts, comments or care regarding the children?

Some pedophiles may not be killers but do you sincerely believe that "they don't hurt anyone", which includes the psychological development of the subjected children? By what rationale would the perspective of "they don't hurt anyone" be considered "true" when that perspective involves subjecting a child to the sexual advances of an adult. Such behavior is akin to those fellows in California who where arrested after video surfaced of them sexually molesting paralyzed and otherwise invalid patients--individuals incapable of defense against the aberrant behaviors of others.

As I wrote, "The evolved nature of sexuality is procreation at the uppermost, mutually beneficial and nurturing interaction that promotes bonding at the very least." As I have asked, "How does a physically and sexuality immature prepubescent or a creature not evolved to procreate with humans benefit from the advances of a sexuality mature human? How does pedophilia and bestiality, which are clearly behaviors aberrant to the evolved nature of human sexually, benefit entities (children and animals) incapable of participating in behaviors clearly incompatible with their physical and psychological development?" Behaviors, imposed on children and animals by sexually muture human adults, that provide no direct or indirect benefit to either child or animal are unequivocally suggestive of aberrance and an unhealthy mind in need of treatment.

As this is a science forum, let's consider the logic. Statistical preferences may merely reflect the frequency of aberrance in the specific behaviors of a populous rather than the natural or evolved nature of that behavior. The evolved nature of sexuality is procreation at the uppermost, mutually beneficial and nurturing interaction that promotes bonding at the very least. How does a physically and sexuality immature prepubescent or a creature not evolved to procreate with humans benefit from the advances of a sexuality mature human? How does pedophilia and bestiality, which are clearly behaviors aberrant to the evolved nature of human sexually, benefit entities (children and animals) incapable of participating in behaviors clearly incompatible to their physical and psychological development? Although thoughts enveloping aberrant behaviors are not illegal, they are suggestive of an unhealthy mind arising from either a deep psychological root cause or some brain disorder.

The human brain can sustain a surprising amount of damage (e,g., Google search Phineas Gage) without causing death. Although not instantaneous, a gunshot to any area of the cortex can cause death through excessive intracranial pressure arising from either brain swelling or edema. Abraham Lincoln lingered for several days as a result of the brain injury cause by a low-caliber bullet that didn't exit his skull after being shot at close range from the back. Instantaneous death may only be caused by gunshots to the brain that also damage the brainstem, which regulates heart and lung function. To some of us, it is not uncommon to think of such things around this time of the year. The holiday season seems to amplify the loneliness and misfortune some of us feel. However, such thoughts are unhealthy and one should seek the counsel of a mental healthcare provider should these thoughts persist.

No! To confirm that someone has died because of a dream, we would require some evidence, direct or indirect, as confirmation from the dreamer. After nearly four decades of general study, I have not reviewed any credible evidence of dreaming as a cause of death while sleep other than deaths due to injury while sleepwalking. During an earlier age of investigative ignorance on the causes of death, the myth of people dying because of a dream likely got its start as an explanation for deaths occurring amid sleep without any outward sign of injury. Dreams are how our brain synthesize or interpret activations in the brainstem that occur amid sleep. These activations are a result of vestigial metabolic neural processes associated with prolonged periods of physical inactivity. The memories we have of dreaming form as the sleeping brain arouses to wakeful levels of activity. Those memories are how our waking brain interprets what it believes it experienced as a result of the activation in the brainstem occurring during the sleep process.

I think these comments suggest the most likely cause of your experience:

For functional anatomy, Kolb B., Whishaw IQ., Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology, New York: Worth Publishers. Or, Nolte,J., The Human Brain: An Introduction to Its Functional Anatomy, St. Louis: Mosby Publishers. For pure anatomy, Netter F.H., Atlas of Human Anatomy, New Jersey: Icon Learning Systems Publishers. I hope this helps.

As mental experiences, dreams are primarily reflective of influences affecting what we may deeply think and feel. The cyclical nature of life experience (fall, winter, spring, summer, etc.) suggests the likelihood that your recurring dream aligns with the cyclical nature of your life experience. Something that occurs annually or periodically in your life is having such an affect as to cause your dream recurrence. Examine the experiences in your life surrounding your recurring dream and you will likely find its source. I hope this helps.

If you are describing the experience of dreaming while awake, that state is akin to what we find with schizophrenia and you should probably review your family history and consult a mental health specialist. However, if what you are descirbing is akin to vivid memory of a prior experience, then it is not so uncommon. Your vivid recollections of a dream can occur as most memories of experience do, through environmental cues that trigger your recollections. Essentially, rather than imagination, dreams are interpretations of mental experience. Dreaming is an experience that occurs when the sleeping brain partially disconnects--at the onset of atonia--from the sensory experience of physical reality. Amid that state, the sleeping brain becomes active as a result of the vestigial processes of sleep arising from activations in the brainstem. The now active brain amid sleep interpret those activations in the brainstem as mental experience rather than physical because of the brain's partial disconnect from physical reality. It isn't until we awake that the mental experience of dreaming becomes interpreted by our waking-state brain as the pseudo-physical/material experiences we recall as dreams. Dreams, in reality, are physical/material interpretations of mental experience. They are best understood by prefacing their description with the word mental; e.g., dream foods and homes could be best understood as mental foods and mental structures. I hope this helps.

Although the experience of dreaming occurs amid sleep and is popularly understood as the working of the unconscious mind, the imagery and scenarios that interpret dream content are products of the conscious mind. At the onset of atonia--the suspension of gross muscular elasticity and motor responses that occur during the dreaming state of brain function--our brain experiences a partial cessation of full sensory contact with physical/material reality. Our brainstem activations amid the dream state do not generate gross muscular responses because they do not contain the sensory data that informs the dreaming brain that its experiences require a response in physical/material reality. Essentially, dreaming is a mental experience and is interpreted by our brain responses as such, which is why we should consider their imagery and scenarios as interpretations rather than symbols. My study of dreams and dreaming convincingly suggests that our memories of having dreamed form during the arousal process as physical sensory afferents reenters brain structure and arouses those cognitive processes associated with memory. What is not well known by many is that the experiences we recall as dreams are how our linear/literal waking brain interpret the non-linear, purely mental experience of dreaming. More succinctly, dreams are interpretations of mental experience. They are how our waking state brain synthesizes what it believes it experienced amid the sleep process. What our brain experiences during sleep is something best understood by prefacing the content of our dreams with the word mental. For example, being seated in a restaurant while eating a delicious apple pie could be best understood as being mentally seated in a mental structure while mentally consuming some mental food. Our dream recollections are the applications of our conscious linear/literal sensibilities to an experience that does not conform to the laws and logic of physical/material reality. Although our brain's contact with tactile and aural sensory reality diminishes amid dreaming, the experience is every bit an interpretive process as our experiences are in physical reality. Rather than imagination, which is a consciously focused and directed experience, dreaming is the synthesis and response to incoming subcortical data--albeit intracranial neural data--minus the data associated with tactile/aural sensory systems. My study of dreaming suggests that dream content interprets the neural effects from our waking experiences that have remained resonant in brain structure from the onset of sleep. At the onset of sleep, our brain is like one of those old monitors with images that slowly fade as the screen cools when the power is switched-off. Like those old monitors, the data associated with our waking mental experiences is partially restored when switched-on, meaning when the brain arouses amid the sleep process. The mental experiences comprising our dream content are those mental perceptions that remain unabated through the initial phases of sleep (powering-down period) prior to dreaming. Indeed, dreams are not the nonsensical mid-sleep meanderings of an unfettered mind, they are as cogent and meaningful as our conscious experiences might be. What makes our dreams appear otherwise is the linear/literal mindset essential to our navigation of conscious reality. Our unconscious mind, amid dreaming, is not subject to the laws and logic of conscious reality, which the consideration of physical/material experience and consequence governs. The partial cessation of physical/material sensory data to the dreaming brain diminishes activation in specific areas of the brain essential our conscious experience. Without the considerations and constraints of conscious experience, our unconscious mind is able to expand its cognitive limits extraordinarily far beyond the boundaries of our conscious thought and perception.