Remunigerin

I don't agree with you! A sexual arousal with an object is a fetish. Fetishes and sexual orientations are two different things. 1) Pedophiles fall in love with children. Heterosexual men fall in love with women. Homosexual men fall in love with men. Do fetishists fall in love with shoes? 2) A fetish is complentary to a sexual orientation, right? A man who is pedophile and he has the foot fetish, he likes feet of children, right? Or are there fetishists who are exclusively attracted to objects? It's an important point, because many pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children. That's why pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and not a fetish 3) Sexual orientations describe a preference of body features. An object is an object, it has not a body. You are speaking about sexual abuse, which is traumatic for adults too. Marant was speaking about consensual sex.

I said that pedophiles fall in love with children in the same way that heterosexuals fall in love with women and homosexuals with men, and you asked me for a source.... Every person who has a minimal knowledge about the topic knows the thing I said. It's obvious that you don't know ANYTHING about pedosexuality. Go to the library, buy 5-10 books about the topic, and then you'll be ready to discuss with me and understand what I'm saying. How can I explain mathematik to a person who doesn't know numbers? The labels "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "bisexual" are arbitrary categories too. They are only labels invented by humans to approximatively describe human sexuality. Kinsey explained well that categories in human sexuality don't exist, because sexuality is not black and white. The dictionary explains the meaning of the words. The original meaning of the word "sexual orientation" is not "the prefered sex"; every kind of preference is a part of sexual orientation. The fact that humans have decided to divide "sexual orientation" in three categories based on the preference of sex is absolutely arbitrary. If you think that what I say is not true... well, I wait for citations, or at least a logic argument. The preference between prepubescents/adults is as integrated in a person as the preference of one sex. That's why the preference between prepubescents/adults can be considered one of the main discrimination in human sexuality, exactly like the preference between males and females. A book is written by a person with her personal opinions. Not all people think the same thing! I'll cite some parts of a text written by Michael Bailey. Who is Michaely Bailey? ----------> "I am Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University. I study sexual orientation and related traits such as sex atypicality and gender identity. In 2003 I published a popular science book, that evoked a great deal of controversy, including libel. Here, for now, to help set the record straight." Michael Bailey, in his articles, wrote: "Hebephilia and pedophilia are sexual orientations, just like normal heterosexuality and homosexuality. Also like normal sexualities, they are not just sexual. Not only do straight men have sex with women, they also fall in love with them, court them, bond with them, and sleep in the same bed with them, often without anything overtly sexual occurring. There is no reason why hebephiles and pedophiles would not also have feelings of love and attachment, as well as sexual attraction, towards children." "The word for sexual attraction to pubescent children is "hebephilia" (pronounced "heebuhfeelia"). Hebephilia appears to be a distinct sexual orientation from pedophilia, and it is somewhat more common. If the rumors and accusations are true, then Jackson appears to have preferred pubescent boys, and so would have been a homosexual hebephile. Homosexual hebephiles and pedophiles are not gay. Gay men are sexually attracted to physically mature men and are no more aroused by male children than straight men are by female children. Furthermore, unlike gay men, homosexual hebephiles and pedophiles did not tend to start out as feminine boys. (As far as we can tell, all hebephiles and pedophiles are men. The rare woman who molests children is more likely to have a mental illness than a stable sexual preference for children.)" http://www.science20...ckson_pedophile I reassume what Michael wrote: - He wrote that pedophilia is a sexual orientation like homsoexuality and heterosexuality - He wrote that homosexual pedophilia and homosexuality are two difefrent sexual orientations, that means that the discrimination of "prepubescents/adults", according to him, is a part of the sexual orientation. - He wrote that pedophilia (attraction to prepubescent children) and hebephilia (attraction to children who are reaching puberty) are two distinct sexual orientations. So, not only he thinks that attraction to adults and attraction to children are two separate sexual orientations, but he also thinks that attraction to children can be divided in more sexual orientations. It seems that not all experts think that sexual orientation is simply: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual. No, I want that you play the game too. You think that homosexuality is a sexual orientation and pedosexuality is not. Why don't you cite an expert who explains why the preference of one sex is a sexual orientation and the preference between adults and children can't be considered a sexual orientation too? And finally; I have a question for you: which is, according to you, the sexual orientation of a man who is exclusively attracted to female dogs, BUT NOT to women? Is he straight? And if he's straight, could you explain me what exactly have in common a man who is attracted to a woman and an other man who is attracted to female dogs? The preference of one sex is the exclusive thing that caracterizes human sexuality, according to you, right?

Ok... The main characteristics, which define the basical form of body of a human, are two: male/female AND prepubescent/adult. There are four possible combinations: prepubescent female, prepubescent male, adult female and adult male (teenagers are the "middle way"). Dr James M. Cantor wrote: ""The basic tenet behind describing the human sexual interests under discussion here is that erotic interest in children versus adults is just as integrated into a person as is erotic interest in males versus females" So the discrimination of male/female is as important as the discrimination of prepubescent/adult. So, if the preference of women/men is a sexual orientation, then the preference of prepubescent/adult is too, because the two preferences are equally strong and defined. Did I say "equally strong"? Well: to homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally important, but to many pedophiles the discrimination of "prepubescent/adult" is more important than the discrimination of male/female: the preference of sex to them is only secondary. Dr James M Cantor wrote: "Also embedded in this belief about etiology is that gender-orientation overrides age-orientation. That is, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with homosexual teleiophilia (and that heterosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual teleiophilia). The evidence suggests, however, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual pedophilia; pedophiles differentiate less between males and females than do teleiophiles, when they receive a psychophysiological test of erotic preference (Freund & Langevin, 1976; Freund et al., 1991)." Pedophiles have usually a preference between little girls and little boys. Some prefer little girls, some prefer little boys. If you ask pedosexuals attracted to little boys what they prefer sexually between men and little girls, some will tell you that prefer little girls, some will tell you that prefer men and some others will tell you that both options are disgusting. To some pedophiles the sex of the partner is more important than the developement (adult/child) and to others the most important thing is that the partner is a child. Dividing human sexuality only into heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual is a scientifical error: the wrong assumption is, that human sexuality is primarily or exclusively based on the SEX. This is true for androsexuals (attracted to adult males) and gynesexuals (attracted to adult females), because their attraction is based on secondary sex carachteristics, and so their attraction is primarily based on features which are directly related with the sex. But to many pedophiles the sex is practically immaterial, because their attraction is primarily based on "a state of developement": they are attracted to features which are ralated with childhood (low stature, high voice, lack of body hair, childish behaviour, and so on...) and not with the sex. Adults and prepubescent children are very different: they have a different voice, a different basical form of body, a different manner, different interests, and so on... The three things I underlined are VERY IMPORTANT in human sexuality: human sexuality is primarily based on these three things. If you are attracted to a person, is because you like his/her voice and his/her body and his/her manner. Men and women have a different voice, a different body and a different manner. That's why homosexuals are attracted to men but not to women and heterosexuals to women but not to men. Little boys (little girls) and men (women) have a different voice, a different body and a different manner. That's why pedophiles are attracted to children but not to adults of the prefered sex and androphiles/gynephiles to adults but not to children of the prefered sex. The two preferences are perfectly specular. Corps are organic material. They are like objects: they don't eat, they don't shit, they don't piss, they don't speak, they don't think. They are not persons, but they USED to be. A person thinks, eats, pisses, speaks... this the difference between a living (a person) and an object. A corpse is only organic material, an object! The meaning of the word "person" 1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson. 4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person. http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/person A corpse is NOT a person. Corpse are not a category of persons. So, necrophilia is not a sexual orientation. I have well explained that attraction to adults and attraction to children are two separate sexualities. Do I have to add something? You cold say that they are not separate sexualities, and in that case, I would ask you why are attraction to men and women two separate sexualities. Pedophiles also are romantically attracted to children: they fall in love with children in the same way that heterosexuals fall in love with women and homsoexuals with men. Coprophiles don't fall in love with shit. Coprophilia is only a sexual arousal and it's complementary to the sexual orientation (a coprophiles who is heterosexual like shit of women). "Sexual orientation" is a social definition, and not a scientific one. Humans invented sexual orientations because they feel the need to catagorize persons. Homosexuality in the last centuries was not accepted, and the labels "straight" and "homosexual" are a way like an other to ghettoize homosexuals and create stereothypes around them, for example that they are sissies who are more females than males (thing that in many/most cases is not true). It's like to say: "homosexuals are different persons and we need to label them". Then people discovered that exist pedophiles, and they tryed to put them in subcategories. "Well, the population is divided in heterosexuals and homosexuals ("true men" and "sissies") and so pedophiles should be subcategories of them.... oh yes, heterosexual pedophiles are heterosexuals who can't get women, and homosexual pedophiles are homsoexuals who can't get men."

You have to specify about what do you want citations. Some of the things I said are obvious, other are less obvious. But I can't know what is obvious and what is not obvious to you, and I can't spend hours to find citations for every word I have written. Be more precise, please! Which of my claims do you think have to be proved?

Write all my claims that you think should be supported with citations, and I'll try to find them. Finding peer-reviewed in internet is difficult. I should go to the library and look for peer-reviewed books about the topic. By the way, I can cite the opinions of different researchers and the results of differents studies, which say the same things. I'm not the kind of person who believes everything he reads. But when more researchers and more studies say the same things, then to me there is surely something true. I also write in pedo sites to understand better pedosexuality: I ask questions and open polls. Then I compare the results of different polls and I look for scientific researchers about the examined topic; when more of my polls, more experts and more results of scientific researches say the same thing, I consider it true. I can tell you that I'm not the kind of person who invents bullshits. But you surely can understand that a discussion in a forum has many limits. I'll try to find citations for you, but if you really want to learn something about the topic, go to the library, and I'm sure that in books you'll read practically the same things I am writing here. Obviously the book must be written by an expert. The worst thing you can do is read a book which was written by an anti-pedophile. Antis are the primary cause of disinformation about pedophilia. You should ask me more precise questions: what do you exactly mean with sociological/psychological impact? No, it isn't. What I am saying is very easy and obvious. "A black man steals a car" --------> Is the man black? Yes! Did the man steal a car? Yes! Did the man steal the car because he is black? No, he stole the car because he's a stealer. Maybe there is an indirect link between the two things: the average black man in USA is poorer than the average white man in USA, and so black men could be more predisposed to steal. BUT not because they are black, but because they are poor. A man can be black and a stealer, but the two things are not directly linked. Infact a steler is not necessarily black, and a black man is not necessarily a stealer. "A pedosexual rapes a child" ------> Is the man pedosexual? Yes! Did the man rape a child? Yes! Did the man rape the child because he is pedosexual? No, he raped the child because he's a rapist, and since he's a pedosexual, he raped a child and not a woman. A man can be both a pedosexual and a rapist, but the two things are not directly linked. Infact a child rapist is not necessarily pedosexual, and a pedosexual is not necessarily a child rapist. Creating categories and associating sthereotypes to them is the main base of every form of racism. Racism is the most irrational and stupid thing of the human brain. CATEGORIES DON'T EXIST!! There are only single and unrepeatable individuals with different brains who commit different actions. Associating pedosexuals with child molesters is a form of racism, because pedosexuals are not a category (categories have been invented by humans), but single persons with a different brain who commit different actions. A pedosexual can be the most wonderful person of the world, and an other pedosexual could be the worst person of the world. Sexual orientations and sexual acts are two separate things. Sexual acts with children are wrong, but sexual attraction to children (pedosexuality) is not. Yes, most pedosexuals have heterosexual sex and relationships with adults. Many (most?) of them watch child porn and don't have sex with children; they sublimate their pedosexuality with child porn. No, it isn't! Usually pedophiles don't pay for child porn, but they download it for free. So they don't give money to anyone! Most child porn is home-made: pedophiles who have sex with children take pics and movies while they're having sex with the child. And then they share pics and movies in internet with other pedophiles, who don't pay for it. The abuser is the man who produces child porn; pedophiles who watch it are not abusers. You can't abuse anyone with a "click". Child porn is not a market: infact most child porn is home-made! Yes. If a man has sex with an other man, he could be homosexual, but not necessarily! He could have sex with a man for money. He could have sex with a man because he got LSD and he thinks that the man he is fucking is an attractive woman. He could have sex with a man only because he wants to prove it, and maybe he sees that he doesn't like homosexual sex. He could have sex with men because he can't have sex with women. Or.... maybe he is attracted to men. Many child molesters are not pedosexuals: they simply want an hole. Since many pedosexuals are not child molesters and many child molesters are not pedosexuals, there isn't a direct link between the two. But obviously the sexual desire of a pedosexual can drive the man into sexual acts with children... BUT NOT NECESSARILY. I can't reply to your answer. In our society sexual acts with children are considered a bad thing. But I wonder if it really is a bad thing. I am quite sure that in the world there are persons who had sex with an adult when they were children and are happy with it. I'm also sure that in the world there are many persons who had sex with adults when they were children and are NOT happy with it. But we can't know what is the percentage of people who are happy with it and that of people who are not happy with it. To reply to your question I need resarches, but I'm quite sure that there isn't any research about the topic. People simply assume that sexual acts with children are always a violence because society says so. What I can say is that I have read positive testimonials about sex in childhood, and so I know that in some cases is not a violence.

It's not a one-sided discussion. I can support all claims I make with citations from researchers and studies about the topic. You are free to believe the stereothypes that you have learned from society (----> pedophile: a fat, old and disgusting man who rapes children), but don't expect that science supports this stereothype. Researchers who have studied pedophilia have found out that there is a difference between a pedosexual and a child molester. Most child molesters are not pedosexuals: they are men who have failed their relationships with adults, and they have sex with children only because they want an hole; they are like heterosexual men who in jail fuck men, but not because they are homosexuals, but because they want an hole. Pedosexuals are usually the opposite: they are primarily attracted to children, and they have sex with adults only to have an hole. Most pedosexuals sublimate their sexual desire with heterosexual sex and relationships with adults. Many of them search for child porn in internet, but they don't have sex with children. Like I said, this is not the right post to discuss about child molestation. Would you want to speak about "man to man" rape in a post about homosexuality? Sexual acts and sexual orientations are two separate things. Even more, are sexual orientations and violence. Actually, it seems that homosexuals and heterosexuals are more dangerous than pedophiles. Infact, like I said most child molesters are heterosexuals and homsoexuals (usually heterosexuals) who don't have success with adults and so they sublimate their sexuality with children. Furthermore, most murders of children are committed by straight persons, and not by pedophiles (of 3000 cases of murders of children, only 50 have a sexual background). No, it's not. Here we are discussing about pedosexuality and other sexual orientations, and I have well explained that there isn't a direct link between pedosexuality and child molestation. It seems that you don't like the definition of pedosexuality as a sexual orientation because you think that is like to legitimate sexual acts between adults and children. It's an empty argument: the "argument from adverse consequences" -----> "If we allow people to believe that attraction to children is a sexual orientation, pedophiles will think that they are normal and they have the right to have sex with children". The site I refer is a scientific site that supports all "strong" claims with studies and citations. I don't see why a scientific site should support false sthereoypes; what do you mean with "both sides"? The topic has two sides: the scientific side and the sthereotypical side. And a scientical site must only consider the first! There are not therapeutic remedies for pedosexuals. There are therapeutic remedies for child molesters (so they can learn self control), but changing the sexual orientation is practically impossible. THe exclusive thing we can do with pedosexuals is to accept them and show them that they are absolutely accepted in society until they don't molest a child. The attitude that society has towards pedosexuals is absolutekly wrong: we don't help them if we label pedosexuals as "sick" and/or "disgusting" and/or "monsters".

This is not the right place to discuss about child molestation. Here we discuss about sexual orientations! Your question sounds strange... "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?" ----> If you think that rape and murders of women are consequences of heterosexuality... then yes, child molestation and murders of children are consequences of pedophilia. BUt no... I think that these two statements are false and ridiculous! Being a killer or rapist is something that has to do with personal characteristics, and it isn't at all related with sexual orientation. If a black man stole a car, you would say that his action has something to do with his hair color? Persons who create links between personal features and bad actions, are called racists! Many pedophiles are not child rapists, and most child rapists are not pedophiles. A pedophile is someone who is primarily attracted to children, and most child rapists are not. Most child rapists are primarily attracted to adults and they rape children only because it's easier. I'll give a citation about it: " most child molesters are not paedophiles and many paedophiles are not child molesters" http://www.attractedtochildren.org/ So to conclusion, I think no: child molestation is not directly linked with pedophilia. Even less is murder of children! By the way, it seems that you don't want to consider pedosexuality a sexual orientation because you think that is contrary to a moral law. It's a false argument called: "argument from adverse consequences": "If we allow people to believe the evolutionist doctrine that they are nothing but animals, human civilization will be DESTROYED in a tidal wave of immorality!" http://rationalwiki....loney_Detection ----> "If we allow people to believe that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, pedophiles will think that they have the right to have sex with children" Nature and science have nothing to with morality!

You missed the meaning of the word "sexual orientation"; it has nothing to do with morality! 2.orientation - an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs 4.orientation - a predisposition in favor of something; "a predilection for expensive cars"; "his sexual preferences"; "showed a Marxist orientation" http://www.thefreedi...com/orientation Adj.1.sexual - of or relating to or characterized by sexuality; "sexual orientation"; "sexual distinctions" http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/sexual So, a sexual orientation is an integrated set of sexual attitudes and a predisposition in favor of something that has to do with sexuality. The sexual orientation describes the direction of your sexual desire. Human sexuality can mainly have four directions: towards men, towards women, towards little boys, towards little girls. Like I said, persons who prefer men usually are not attracted to little boys, and persons who prefer women, usually are not attracted to little girls. And many pedophiles are eclusively attracted to children. In particular, pedophile attracted to little boys are usually very much "oriented": 80% of them don't like men at all. Between a prepubescent child and an adult of the same sex there are very strong differences, which are practically as strong as the differences there are between men and women. That's why pedophilia is not a fetish like the preference of the hair color or something like this, but it's a real and defined sexual orientation. Recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation is not a benediction to sex with children. It simply means that attraction to adults and attraction to children are two different sexualities. In other words, pedophilia is not a fetish which is complementary to an adult sexual orientation, but an independent sexual orientation. To conclude, I quote a few parts of a text written by Dr James M. Cantor, who explains very well that pedophilia is a seperate attraction. "The basic tenet behind describing the human sexual interests under discussion here is that erotic interest in children versus adults is just as integrated into a person as is erotic interest in males versus females. Pedophilic men experience penile erections when they view erotica of children in the same way that teleiophilic men experience erections when they view erotica of adults (e.g., Blanchard et al., 2001). Both gay and straight men show little reaction when viewing erotica of the less interesting age group in the same way that both gay and straight men show little reaction when viewing erotica of the less interesting sex (e.g., Freund et al., 1973; Freund, Watson, & Rienzo, 1989). Thus, describing a man's sexual interest requires naming both the sex and the age that interest him and leads to the terminology above." "Given the precision used by professional sex researchers, the question 'How many gay men are pedophiles?' also evaporates. To ask 'how many gay men are pedophiles' is to ask 'how many of the men with a primary interest in adults have a primary interest in non-adults?' The answer is none." "The scientific error, however, is not in the measurement of sex ratios of victims, but in the failure to recognize that homosexual pedophilia and homosexual teleiophilia are distinct and that humans do not shift between them. Attempts to change age-orientation have been as dismal as attempts to change sex-orientation. As a corollary, among non-specialists there also exists a general failure to recognize heterosexual pedophilia as distinct from heterosexual teleiophilia." "Also embedded in this belief about etiology is that gender-orientation overrides age-orientation. That is, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with homosexual teleiophilia (and that heterosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual teleiophilia). The evidence suggests, however, that homosexual pedophilia is most closely linked with heterosexual pedophilia; pedophiles differentiate less between males and females than do teleiophiles, when they receive a psychophysiological test of erotic preference (Freund & Langevin, 1976; Freund et al., 1991)." "Studies of brain function have revealed certain patterns of functioning in normal gay men that differentiate them from straight men (e.g., Wegesin, 1998). Likewise, the brain functioning of pedophiles appears to differ from that of teleiophiles in yet another pattern (e.g., Cantor, Christensen, Klassen, Dickey, & Blanchard, 2001)." http://individual.ut...ntor/blog1.html

Here you can vote: http://www.polljunki.../Poll10382.aspx and here's the results: http://www.polljunki.../View10382.aspx The last one was: http://www.sciencefo...bout-sexuality/

PEDOPHILIA IS A SEXUAL ORIENTATION!! "Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty, remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials. Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change" "Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, not something that develops in someone who is homosexual or heterosexual. Some people with pedophilic urges are also attracted to adults, and may act only on the latter urges. Because people with pedophilic urges tend to be attracted to children of a particular gender, they are sometimes described in the literature as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual pedophiles. Roughly 9% to 40% of pedophiles are homosexual in their orientation toward children — but that is not the same as saying they are homosexual. Homosexual adults are no more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children." http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia

You are confusing "sexual orientation" with "preferences". A man is attracted to women -----> this is his sexual orientation. Then he prefers tall, skinny women with brown hairs ----> these are his "preferences" A pedophile... A man is attracted to little boys ----> this is his sexual orientation. Then, he prefers blonde, skinny boys -----> this is his preference There is a great difference between the sexual orientation and the preferences... The first man prefers women with brown hairs, but he'll be able to have sex with a blonde woman too. Contrarily, he won't be able to have sex with men (or little girls or little boys) The second man prefers blonde boys, but he'll be able to turn on with brown boys too. Contrarily, he won't be able to have sex with men (or women, or little girls). Sexual orientation is more strong... much more strong than a simple "preference". The attraction that a pedophile has towards children is not only a simple "fetish".. " I prefer little boys, but I still like men". No, there is a very strong line in both senses: pedophiles have repulsion to sex with grown men, and gay men have repulsion to sex with little boys. A pedophile who is attarcted to blonde boys is able to understand a pedophile attracted to brown boys, but he's not able to understand an other man attracted to grown men. 60% of pedophiles attracted to little boys are exclusively attracted to little boys, and 80% don't have any attraction to men. To my experience, pedophiles attarcted to little girls usually have at least some attraction to women, but pedophiles attracted to little boys tend to be really exclusive, and those who are not exclusive, are often attracted to women but not to men. Why is pedophilia not only a "preference" but a "sexual orientation"? Well, not only because between pedophilia and gynephilia/androphilia there is empirically a strong line, but also because the differences between a prepubescent child and an adult of the same sex are similar with differences that threre are between men and women. For example... One difference between men and women is that women have boobs and men not... But is it not the same difference that there is between women and little girls? ---> women have boobs, little girls have not An other difference... Men have a deeper voice than women: women have an "high" voice, and men have a "deep" and throatly voice. But is it not the same difference that there is between men and little boys? An other one... Men have facial hairs and hairs in the whole body. Women have little or none hairs. But is it not the same difference that there is between men and little boys? Do I have to go on? Well... then I guess that pedophiles and zoophiles don't exist! Yes, every living in the earth has a sex, and so it's obvious that until you'll have sex with a living, you'll have sex with a male or with a female. But this doesn't mean that the discrimination of an attraction is always based on the sex... The attraction of pedophiles, for example, is not based on the sex, but it's primarily based on "the state of developement". Gynephiles and androphiles have an attraction primarily based on the gender: they like features which are directly related to a sex. Pedophiles have an attraction towards some features which are primarily linked with a "state of developement": we can say that pedophiles like the the "androgynous" body. They like the lack of features who define masculine and feminine body. Obviously, pedophile can prefer children of a sex or an other, but their attraction is not based on the sex... contrarly, they have repulsion to the sex... they have repulsion towards features which define the sex. So pedophilia not only is not based on a sex, but it's pratically mutually exclusive with the sex: pedophile are attracted to androginy. To conclusion, the fact that EVERYONE is homosexual or heterosexual, that means he is attracted to ONE sex, it's bullshit. It's like to exclude pedophiles and zoophiles from human sexuality. You can exclude them, if you want, but it not scientifical! I like the game! Write all the differences you can between men and women: I'm sure that I'll find as many ojective differences between little boys/men and little girls/women as you can find between men and women... except one: the genitals. And then, write all differences you can between little boys and little girls: I'm sure I'll find MORE objective differences between men/little boys and women /little girls than you can find between little boys and little girls.... except one: genitals. Let's go! Maybe you can also see when a man is attractive, but this doesn't mean that you're sexually attarcted to men. There is difference between SEXUAL attraction to children and SEXUAL attraction to adults. And by the way are you sure that you can say if (for example) a little boy will be a good-looking man? I'm not sure: usually children change a lot when they grew up, and many beautilful children become horrible adults, and many good-looking adults were ugly children!

Why should pedophilia NOT be considered a sexual orientation? This is the right question! I explained it better. "Sexual orientation" is about body, and humans have basically four type of bodies: men, women, little girls, little boys. There are differences between men and women, between women and little girls, between women and little boys, between little boys and ltitle girls, between men and little boys. Every attraction towards one of this categories, is a peculiar attraction: a sexual orientation! The basical look of a person is defined by two things: sex and age. Every person in the world has a prefernce of age and sex. You said that preference of sex is a spectrum... you're right! And there is an "age preference spectrum" too. The two extremes of this spectrum are: prepubescent children and adults. Women and men have different features, a different body, a different face. Prepubescent children and adults have a different body, different features, a different face. So the correct question is: why is homosexuality a sexual orientation but NOT pedophilia?? There are as many objective differences between adults and children as between men and women... so, if preferring men rather than women or women rather than men is a sexual orientation, then preferring children rather than adults is a sexual orientation too. Simple and plain! If I wrote that sun is hot, would you ask citations? I said an obvious thing: attraction to adults and attraction to children are not the same thing. If you need citations about this.... well... I guess you're trolling!

The poll had a big mistake!! The right poll is this: http://www.polljunki...k/Poll9973.aspx If you voted in the old poll, please, vote again! A corpse is not a person. You can't have a conversation with a corps! A person is a BRAIN. A corpse WAS a person, but now is only organic material! They were not true necrophile, then! A necrophile likes decomposed corpses! They were probably persons who lost the person they loved and so they wanted to conserve the corpse! That's exactly what I think: human sexuality is a spectrum, and sexual orientations are "names" we use to approximatively describe human sexuality. But what I don't understand is why people think to describe human sexuality only with "homosexual" and "heterosexual". Humans sexuality is not 1 or 0, 0 or 1! But it seems that most persons don't understand this... when a pedophile have sex with little boys, they say "gays are dangerous, gays are child molesters". They assume that a man attracted to little boys and man attracted to men have the same sexuality... why? Because we don't have as many names as we need to seperate the different sexual orientations in human sexuality! Many people think that sexuality is only "homosexual" or "heterosexual"... they don't understand that is more complex. Pedophilia is an other sexuality, but until we'll describe human sexuality only with "homosexual" and "heterosexual", people won't understand the differnce between a gay and a pedophile who likes little boys. In my point of view, a pedophile who likes little boys has pratically nothing in common sexually with a gay who likes men... his sexuality his more similar to a pedophile attracted to little girls. I think that sexuality is not attraction to genitals.... but attraction to features and forms of body! An heterosexual men is attracted to women because he's attarcted to typical physical features of women. An homosexual man is attracted to men because he's attracted to typical physical features of men. A pedophile is pedophile because he's attracted to typical physical features of prepubescent children. Since children have not hit puberty yet, they don't have secondary sex carachters, and the body of little boys and little girls is pratically identical. A pedophile attracted to little girls and a pedophile attracted to little boys are pratically attracted to the same features, to the same forms! Contrarily, a man attracted to men and a man attracted to little boys are attracted to features and forms which are really different!! But the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" create a great confusion: according to this definition, pedophiles attracted to little boys have more in common with gay men, and not with pedophiles who like little girls. That's why people say gays are pedophile. "Homosexual", "bisexual" and "heterosexual" are quite good to describe sexuality of people attracted to adult humans. Men have their typical body. Women have their typical body. If you like men, you like some features and forms which are typical of men, and if you like women, you like some features and forms which are typical of women. But there are people who are not attracted to adult humans, and so the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are not only limited, but senseless! You won't never understand human sexuality with two labels!! Describing a zoophile attarcted to female dogs, a pedophile attracted to little girls and a man attracted to women with the same label, it's nonsense. A man attracted to female dogs has sexually more in common with a man attracted to male dogs, but the word "heterosexual" let you think that a man attracted to female dogs or to little girls have sexually something in common with men attracted to women. This is absurd!! Don't you think? Humans have four main type of body: body of prepubescent males, body of prepubescent females, body of women, body of men. So, there are at least four sexual orientations! We have four type of bodies with theirs own peculiar features, and so there are at least four sexual orientations! If we want to describe human sexuality, we need them!! If you want to understand sexuality only with 0 and 1, heterosexual and homsoexual, you won't be so far! Have I ever said this? I am criticizing the labels "homosexual" and "heterosexual", which don't permit to udnerstand well human sexuality. Have I ever said this? I'm quite sure that if a person is attracted to little girls, he can't have repulsion to little boys, and viceversa, if a person is attarcted to little boys, he can't have repulsion to little girls. Little boys and little girls have basically the same body, and since I believe that sexual orientation is mostly about body (and not genitals), I think that there aren't sexually so many differences between pedophiles attracted to little girls and pedophiles attracted to little boys. I'm not sure you're right. I think that a true pedophile will always prefer children, and so if a pedophile who likes little boys has to choose between men and little girls, he'll choose the second one. But it's not true that he doesn't care about sex of the child!! By the way, if a true pedophile will always prefer children, it's because, like I said, there is no such thing as an "homosexual" or an "heterosexual". There are forms and features, and a person is simply attracted to features and forms that he likes. A pedophile will always prefer children because little girls have a body which is the most similar to the body of little boys. But the senseless labels "homosexual" and "heterosexual" let many people think that a pedophile who likes little boys is a gay man who can't get men... a gay man like body and forms of men, so why should a gay man have sex with little boys?

If I said that there isn't any link between attraction to men and attraction to women, would you need citations? So, why do you need citations about the fact that there isn't any link between attraction to adults and attraction to children? Exaplain me this, please! Being attracted to women, doesn't mean to be attracted to men, right? So there isn't any link between the two attractions. Being attracted to women/men doesn't men to be attracted to little girls/little boys, right? And viceversa, bening attracted to little girls/little boys doesn't mean to be attracted to women/men, right? So there isn't any link! It's a fact of logic!

No, necrophilia is not a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation: sexual attraction towards a limited category of persons (or at least livings). Men are a category of persons. Women are a category of persons. Little girls are a category of persons. Little boys are a category of persons. Animals are a category of livings. Corps are not a category of persons. And by the way, do you think that a person can fall in love with a corps? I think that necrophilia it's only a "fetish"... it's only pleasure. Sexual orientation doesn't mean only "sex".. only physical pleasure. Sexual orientation means "desire to cuddle", to kiss, to stay with... to sleep with (in non-sexual way). Pedophiles fall in love with children. Do necrophiles fall in love with corps? Yes, and pedophilia is not a fetish, is a sexual orientation. A fetish is complementary to a sexual orientation. Pedophilia is not complementary to a sexuality... it's an independent sexuality. And unlike a fetish, which is only sexual arousal, pedophilia means also "romantical attraction", so pedophilia it's a sexual orientation, and not a fetish! By the way most pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children. Pedophiles are not killers and don't hurt anyone. A pedophile is only a person primarily attracted to children. Describing human sexuality with "heterosexual" and "homosexual" means "studying sexuality"? Descrbing the sexuality of a person attracted to male dogs with the same word like the sexuality of a man attracted to men means "studying sexuality"? Wow, that's very accurate!! If we have to call sexual attractions with a name, then heterosexual and homsoexual are not sufficent. Or we describe sexuality more accurately, or we don't describe! Many zoophiles have a partnership with their dog. It's not only a sexual thing. It's not only a fetish. THey want to be in love with animals. And pedophiles with children too!

Ok, I'll answer to things that you put in bold Give me your definition of the word "sexual orientation", and then explain me why "asexuality" is one. To my definition a sexual orientation describes "what you are attracted to", but if you don't have any attraction, obviously you don't have a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is the "direction of your sexual desire". If you don't have a sexual desire, how can your sexual desire have a direction. It's a nonsense! First of all, if you don't see the difference between a child and an adult of the same sex, it mean that to you women and little girls are the same. So, are you sexually attracted to little girls? If you need citations about my statement it means that you don't aggree with me.. right? So I could ask you: what's the link between attraction to little girls and attraction to women? What's the link between attraction to little boys and attraction to men? Explain me and then give me some citations! I don't need citations because what I say it's obvious. Between e prepubescent child and an adult of the same sex there are pratically as many difference as between men and women. So, what do they have in common a person attracted to prepubescent boys/girls and an other person attracted to men/women? Nothing more than what have in common heterosexuals and homosexuals! But, I'll try to be more concrete. Zapatos, did you know that most pedophiles who have sex with little boys are married men? Or men who have a partnership with the mom of the boy? Many pedophile attracted to little boys, have an heterosexual orientation towards adults. Tht's a prove of the fact that attraction to adult and attraction to children are two different sexualities: there isn't any link! Did you know that pedophiles attracted to little boys have usually a strong sexual repulsion towards adult men? And that most of them are exclusively attracted to little boys? Many persons try to demonstrate that gays are pedophile saying that many pedophiles molest little boys. But psychology says that men attracted to little boys have not the same sexuality like men attracted to men. http://www.boxturtle...les/000,002.htm I don't need citations. "Sexual orientation" is only an arbitrary definition. It's not a scientifical definition, but a social definition. So, everyone can have his own definition about how many and which sexual orientations there are. If homosexuality and heterosexuality are two different sexual orientations, then pedosexuality and gynesexuality/androsexuality are too, in my opinion!

Firs of all, androsexual is the word which describes attraction to adult men, and gynesexual the word which describes attraction to adult women. A male dog is a male but not a man. A female dog is a female but not a woman. The right word would be homosexual/heterosexual, which are simple words that mean "same sex" and "opposite sex". By the way, I have a question: do you think that a man attracted to men and an other man attracted to male dogs have something in common? I personally would say that a man attracted to male dogs and a man attracted to female dogs have in common much more than a man attracted to men and a man attracted to male dogs. Don't you think? And I also think that a man attracted to little boys and a man attracted to little girls have more in common than a man attracted to men/women and a man attracted to little boys/little girls. That's why I think the words "heterosexual" and "homsoexual" are very limited to describe human sexuality: it's like to say that attraction it's exclusively based on genitals you like, while in reality the form of body is more important than genitals. Until we speak about attraction to men and women, the two words homosexual and heterosexual are good to describes your sexuality. Men are always men, and women are always women. A man attracted to men has surely something in common with an other man attracted to men: they at least like basically the same body. But the problem is that many persons are not attracted to men or women: many persons are attarcted to little boys, or to little girls or to animals. And when we consider these persons, the two words become not only limited to describe human sexuality, but pratically insignificant. If two androphile men go to drink a coffee together, they can speak about men (or maybe they fall in love). If two gynephiles go to drink a coffee together, they can speak about women. But if an androphile, an homosexual pedophile, and an homosexual zoophile go to drink a coffee in a bar, I'm quite sure that they have nothing to share about sexuality. They can speak about music, about weather... about what they want, but they don't have nothing in common sexually! They could say: "Oh well.... we are all homosexual, according to the dictionary! But what do we have in common? I like male dogs, he likes men and you like children." That's exactly the point: what do they have in common?? Describing sexuality with "heterosexual" and "homosexual" is very limited!! The two words create categories that don't exist! Do you see what I mean??

I used the wrong words. Everyone in the world has at least one of these sexual orientations. If a person doesn't have at least one, he's asexual. Maybe in the world there are necrophiles who can have sex only with corps. By the way, a corp is not a living person. A sexual orientation is towards livings. So an exclusive necrophile would be a fetishist with no sexual orientation. There is no such thing as the sexual orientation: asexual. Sexual orientation describes your object of sexual attraction. Asexuals have not sexual attractions. So, they don't have any sexual orientation. The person who wrote the article in wikipedia and the persons who say that "asexuality" is a sexual orientation don't understand the meaning of the word! Then, dividing people only in two categories, "homosexual" and "heterosexual", is very limited! It's like to say that you can be attracted only to men or to women! There are many persons exclusively attracted to animals or to children and don't have anyattraction towards men or women. With "heterosexual" and "homosexual" you won't never be able to describes human sexuality. A person which is attracted to dogs is heterosexual or homosexual? If he's attracted to male dogs he's gay and if he's attracted to female dogs is heterosexual? It sounds ridiculous! And what about pedophiles? If a man he's attracted to men, he's gay. And a man who is attracted to little boys, is he gay? It sounds like they have the same sexuality, but they have not. There isn't any link between attraction to children of one sex and adults of the same sex. There are many differences between women/little girls men/little boys. Obviously we need the word "pedosexuality" to describe sexuality of many persons. Pedosexuality is a sexual orientation! Every person in the world likes: male or females, adults or children. Male/female and pubescent/prepubescent are the two things that define the form of the body. So we have 4 sexual orientations: attraction to women, to men, to little boys, to little girls. We need at least 4 sexual orientation. Five if we count zoosexuality!

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53912-poll-about-sexuality/ There was a big mistake in the poll, so I've just created a new poll. If you have already voted, please vote again! The two links have been deleted by the moderator. There are two new links with the correct poll!

Thanks!

Hi! I am doing a poll about sexuality. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53912-poll-about-sexuality/page__pid__582004#entry582004 The problem is that the poll has a big mistake: there aren't two important choices (I forgot them). I've just created a new poll, but the topic is old and I can't modify the two links of the poll. What I need is a moderator who changes the first link with this: http://www.polljunkie.com/bA3WQk/Poll9973.aspx And the second one with this: http://www.polljunkie.com/4GqAYr/View9973.aspx Thanks!

Asexuality is not a sexual orientation! Asexuality is the ABSCENCE of any sexual orientation! And bisexual means: androphile + gynephile. So, I didn't forget bisexuality: with the 4 sexual orientations you can pratically describe every human in the earth! A sexual orientations is towards humans or at least towards livings! I think that belonephiles don't fall in love with "sharp objects". Pedophiles fall in love with children, for example. A sexual orientation must have an emotional part! And by the way I'm quite sure that belenophiles are andophiles or gynephiles or pedophiles or zoophiles. Probably they want to do sex games with "sharp objects" with the persons they like... right? For example, if he's androphile, he will do the game with men. So that's only a fetish, which is complementary to a sexual orientation! Don't confuse fetishes with sexual orientations! A gerontophile is a gynephile who like old women or an androphile who like old men. There are pedophiles who like older children and pedophiles who like younger children. In the same way, there are androphiles who like younger men and androphiles who like older men. So, i didn't forget gerontophilia! It's a subset of androphilia and gynephilia! A sexual orientation describes the category of persons you like. Persons have a sex and a state of developement. A person is: male/female, pubescent/prepubescent. These two caratteristichs define the form of the body. A little boy has is own peculiar body, a man has his own peculiar body, a woman her own peculiar body and a little girl her own peculiar body. Necrophilia is not towards livings. So, it's not a sexual orientation! And by the way, a corps is a "dead woman/man/child/animal". I'm not sure, but necrophilia could be a fetish complementery to sexual orientation. For example, an androphile necrophile will have sex with corps of men. Contrarily, is not true that a gynephile who is also pedophile will like little girls: many gynephiles, when they are pedophiles, they like little boys. Many pedophiles who like little boys, are gynephiles (they like women and little boys)! So, pedophilia is an independent sexual orientation, and it's not complementary to an other sexuality! Why do you think I am pedophile? I didn't vote in the poll, so you can't see my vote in it. Four men have voted that they are primarily attracted to little girls and a man (in this forum I think) voted that he's primarily attracted to little boys. I'm not sure that pedophilia is a BRAIN DISORDER. It could be a natural part of human sexuality, but it's actually a taboo. Taboos don't help the science!!

Hi all! I want to do a big poll about human sexuality. We can say that there are four big sexual orientations in human sexuality: gynesexuality (attraction to pubescent females), androsexuality (attraction to pubescent males), pedosexuality (attraction to prepubescent children) and zoosexuality. These are the four main sexual orientations in human sexuality. Every person in the world has one of these 4 sexual orientations! Most persons are attracted to pubescent persons of the opposite sex. But there are many other people who are primarily attracted to pubescent persons of the same sex, or to prepubescent children or to animals. This poll is made to see how many persons have homosexual, pedosexual and zoosexual fantasies. I think there are more persons that we can imagine! This is the poll: http://www.polljunkie.com/pZA59k/Poll9969.asp... Here the results: http://www.polljunkie.com/fSA7GA/View9969.asp... Edit: use these links instead The problem is that the poll has a big mistake: there aren't two important choices (I forgot them). I've just created a new poll, but the topic is old and I can't modify the two links of the poll. What I need is a moderator who changes the first link with this: http://www.polljunki...k/Poll9973.aspx And the second one with this: http://www.polljunki...r/View9973.aspx /edit If you have comments, write here in this thread. REMEMBER: if you decide to vote in this poll, you have to be absolutely sincere and leave out every hypocrisy. If you can't be sincere, then ----> DON'T VOTE!! Furthermore, REMEMBER that having pedosexual fantasies is not a crime. Pedosexuality is a natural part of human sexuality and about 10% of population (experts say) have some attraction to prepubescent children. There isn't anything bad until you don't act in it, and no one can criminalize you until is only a fantasy!! It's not illegal to have pedophilic fantasies!!