The Instigator
PanLeo716366
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Atmas
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Pedophilia is normal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Atmas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,331 times Debate No: 63967
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

PanLeo716366

Pro

Hello, I am in this debate to say that I do believe that Pedophilia is normal and I am looking forward to my opponent's response and this potential debate.

I will start by giving out my argument:

What is Pedophilia?

Pedophilia is an allegedly mental disorder when adult (clinically, 16 and over) men are sexually attracted to prepubescent children (11 and under).

I will say that this is not about "Pedophilia" as in the mainstream misuse of the word, such as using it to refer a child-rapist, which is wrong.

This is the use of the word when it is the love between to partners, one young and another adult (I actually rather want to call this for Pederasty as a replacement due to my connotations with the word, "Pedophilia").

I do not believe that a prepubescent child can be consent, but, naturally, a 12 or 13 years old is sexual mature, that is an established fact, why should that be illegal then? Why is the legal age of consent 15 or 16, when the nature, the destiny has decided 12 or 13, depending on the sex?

I will say that I do not believe a mental disorder can come up, depending on the age, that is impossible. If the 15 years old was with an 11 years old, while there would be social stigmas to it, it will clinically still be normal, but as soon as the 15 years old become 16 (clinically adult) and he is still with his 10 or 11 years old girlfriend, he suddenly become a pedophile and has a mental disorder, that sound irrational to me. How can a disorder, diseases, etc. follow the law of US and social morality? Doesn't it play its own games?

A Pedophile or Pederast is not limited to a child (that is child-molesters as it is easier to control them), a Pedophile or Pederast likes a person who is, unfortunately (but I wish to be fortunately), young or a child.

It is a common and natural custom that Pedophilia is happening, in animals and as well as in humans. I do believe that Child-molestation is a mental disorder, but simply not Pedophilia.

That was my argument for Pedophilia is normal. I look forward to anyone responding.
Atmas

Con

I accept this debate.
I want to begin by saying that Pro hasn't provided a reason why pedophilia is "normal" and has yet to define what they mean by "normal", so for this round, I will assume they mean "natural, as in, not a disorder". I also agree that using pedophilia will not hereafter refer to acting child molesters, only to the attraction itself.

Based on that, I will insert the following definition of a Mental Disorder:
A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability), and which is not developmentally or socially normative.

From there we can see that pedophilia falls under every category in that definition. It is a mental and behavioral pattern (Imagining and seeking out children for sexual gratification), it causes suffering for the pedophile because they know their actions are wrong even if they cannot help it, it impairs their ability to function in ordinary life because their access to the objects of their desire is severely limited and barricaded with strict laws and protective parents, it is not normal in the developmental process of sexual attraction, and it certainly is not normal in civilized society. So by all of these, we can conclude that pedophilia is a mental disorder. If Pro wants a new definition, then let them take it up with the established psychology standards.

Pedophilia being a mental disorder is actually constructive to Pro's case, since it means the pedophile cannot help their attraction, so Pro fighting against such distinction will be disastrous to their claims.

I also want to point out that pedophilia is a sexual preference and requires a person to have sexual desires toward children under the age of consent. Merely enjoying a child's presence more than an adults does not count as pedophilia, there must be sexual desire involved.

With that in order, we move on to the legal laws of pedophilia. The age of consent is varied in each state, so I will use 16 from now on as default. The age of consent is based on the mental readiness of a person to adequately understand sexual desire and sexual actions. The threshold itself is arbitrary, but the effect is to prevent children from being manipulated by those who are older than them to perform sexual acts. Most children from the age of 1-12 have no concept of sexual desire, the attention they might receive from an older person would be naively misinterpreted by the child, and any sexual attention would confuse or even frighten them. They might start finding other children around them to be attractive, but not in a sexual way. This type of attraction is often called, Puppy dog love, as it resembles the pure, non-sexual, affection one might have toward a puppy. I will point out that this is not always the case, puberty is a process that begins at the average age of 12 and ends around 16, but some children will experience a must faster development, especially if they are exposed to sex more often (Whether through television, conversations, finding porn, or by being molested). This is the basis behind the idea of consent, that children who haven't completed their puberty stages are not ready or even capable of giving consent. Outlier children who do not follow the average and mature faster do not count as exceptions.

Addressing Pro's scenario of a 15 year old being with an 11 year old, that would indeed have social stigma and would almost never be allowed. The sole reason being that the 15 year old has other interests that the 11 year old likely does not have. Again, sexual desire is likely not present in the 11 year old and even if they did have sex, it is more than likely to be from manipulation. The 15 year old did not suddenly develop a mental disorder, they already had it to begin with, or they wouldn't be interested in such a young child. If the initial relationship is not sexual in nature, then the 15 year old isn't a pedophile, and they are not really "together".

Sexual desire is the root basis for nearly all relationships concerning Boy/Girlfriends, Spouses, or just romantic love partners, when sexual desire is not present, the relationship is platonic and harmless. The problem with allowing an older person to be with a much younger person is that sexual desire, if not explicit, is unknown between the two. If there is truly no sexual desire, then their relationship is just friends, if there is, then the relationship is sexual. Since pedophilia deals solely with sexual desire, it must be assumed that a pedophiles attention towards a child is based on sexual desire, and thus could lead to sexual acts. A 16 year old has no reason to call a 13 year old their Girl/Boyfriend unless they intend to perform sexual acts with the 13 year old, otherwise, they are just friends.

I leave it to my opponents imagination as to why sexual acts below the age of consent is prohibited in modern society.
Debate Round No. 1
PanLeo716366

Pro

PanLeo716366 forfeited this round.
Atmas

Con

I extend my arguments to the next round, but I also want to add one more thing in this one.
To say that something is "normal" is a subjective statement. Something is only normal when it is common or an of course of the situation. Pedophilia is not common nor is it an of course when viewed through the lens of genetic and social development. Unlike such things as homosexuality, pedophilia is not something you are born with, it is an attraction you obtain through whatever psychosis you are afflicted with (whether this be from being molested yourself, confusing friendship or affection from a child with sexual attraction, or from being unable to control your sexual impulses and letting it take over your reasoning). I don't know if pedophilia is really treatable or if it's a forbidden fruit that poisons the mind forever, like cannibalism or killing.
Debate Round No. 2
PanLeo716366

Pro

PanLeo716366 forfeited this round.
Atmas

Con

Another forfeit.
I have nothing more to add until my opponent responds, so I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
PanLeo716366

Pro

PanLeo716366 forfeited this round.
Atmas

Con

My opponent has closed their account so this debate is basically null. Perhaps they didn't have the intention of having a real debate, in which case, such a pity. I had many further points and rebuttals to make.
Debate Round No. 4
PanLeo716366

Pro

PanLeo716366 forfeited this round.
Atmas

Con

Last round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Thanks and I thought something was fishy. Ah well, looks like I'll be talking to myself.
Posted by Squirrelnuts57 2 years ago
Squirrelnuts57
Hey, Atmas, uh PanLeo716366 no longer exists. His account was closed. You are debating against a non-existent debater. I'll vote for you though...
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
You are correct that those things are not "normal" (with average biological sexual attraction being what you mean by normal) however, only one of those, Homosexuality, can involve two human beings able and willing to consent. That is why it is generally accepted, despite how you may feel about it, two consenting adults can do whatever they want.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
You probably think homo's are normal too. Or animal sex, rape.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
PanLeo716366AtmasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has never forfeited any round in this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
PanLeo716366AtmasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
PanLeo716366AtmasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
PanLeo716366AtmasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff and dropped argument from pro.