On Pedophilia.

no-peds-copy

The word “pedophilia” is the combination of two Greek words meaning love of children.  From Psychology Today, “Pedophilia is considered a paraphilia, a condition in which a person’s sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme. Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with children who are generally age 13 years or younger.”[1] “The term paraphilia refers to intense sexual attraction to any objects or people outside of genital stimulation with consenting adult partners. A paraphilia is considered a disorder when the paraphilia is causing distress or threatens to harm someone else.”[2] The translation from Greek of “philia” is brotherly love.  Perhaps a better word for this “disorder” is “Pedosexualis,” as a sub-disorder of “Parasexualis.” Even that falls short of this activity.

The next thing that bothers me is the philosophical definition of love, or the “Nature of Love.”  “Presuming love has a nature, it should be, to some extent at least, describable within the concepts of language. But what is meant by an appropriate language of description may be as philosophically beguiling as love itself. Such considerations invoke the philosophy of language, of the relevance and appropriateness of meanings, but they also provide the analysis of “love” with its first principles. Does it exist and if so, is it knowable, comprehensible, and describable? Love may be knowable and comprehensible to others, as understood in the phrases, “I am in love”, “I love you”, but what “love” means in these sentences may not be analyzed further: that is, the concept “love” is irreducible-an axiomatic, or self-evident, state of affairs that warrants no further intellectual intrusion, an apodictic category perhaps, that a Kantian may recognize.”[3]  Much of philosophy talks in circles and this is no different.

I have clearly defined love as a spectrum of energy impacting us at the genetic level.[4]  I say clearly, but there is no scientific proof of even the existence of such an energy spectrum.  Science hasn’t looked!  Erotic love is a small part of the spectrum.  Erotic love may be looked at as sexual love between consenting adults.  In 1753 The English Marriage Act defined the age of consent as 21.  Shortly thereafter, Scotland lowered the age to 12 for girls and 14 for boys. However, today’s definition of “adult” is arbitrary at age 18 and in some cases today might be extended to age 40 or beyond. It would then seem the term pedophilia is in fact a misnomer of some dude attempting to justify his behavior as love.  It is not love by any stretch of the imagination.

There are two psychological needs of humans: to love and be loved.  The spectrum can be infinite, with erotic love simply being a small, intimate and powerful part of the spectrum.  We can love others without sexual desire.  Children are in this categorySo, what has happened to us that an estimated 3% of the male population is pedophilic?  What has happened to us that few actually practice love in our (adult) relationships?  Love is all around us and in us.  I believe there is a big con game going on for centuries, to dissuade us from love.  Around 1280CE the Spectorum Doctrinale (the Funk and Wagnalls of the 13th Century) Told husbands not to love their wives too much.[5]  At the same time Nahmanides (?) in The Holy Letter (Igarette ha Kodesh written for the Kabbalah) was exhorting men to treat the act of love and the partner with reverence and respect: attributes of love.[6]  The Spectorum Doctrinale, from the Roman Catholic Church had a much wider circulation than those in the Kabbalah.

In my view simply based on anatomy, women have a greater capacity to love than do men.  Capacity may not be the right word, but it gets the point across.  By the same token, based on their experiences with men today, many women have shut down this capacity.  Men are humans too and have the same psychological needs to love and be loved.  Our culture has equated love with sex!  Children, not yet calloused by modern erroneous belief systems, just love anyway.  They are easy targets for rejected men who are looking for “love.”  To say these are rejected men is being kind.

The real question is why have we been conned out of love?  My answer is love is the glue that holds relationships together, even when you are so pissed you could strangle him or her.  They have threatened the illusion of your identity!  (You are actually something more so it is not a bad thing; we just see it that way.)  As you go through this, you grow into interdependency and become aware.  This is the threat to the powers that be!  So we deviate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia

[2] https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/paraphilias

[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/#H2

[4] https://thesacredfemale.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/a-proposed-model-of-love/

[5] Ryan, Christopher, and Cacilda Jetha. Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What it Means for Modern Relationships. New York: Harper Perennial, 2009

[6] Cohen, Seymore J. trans. The Holy Letter, (attrib. To Nahmanides) Jason Aronson, Inc, 1976

8 Responses to “On Pedophilia.”

  1. Martin Jelfs Says:

    Some paedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children and are therefore fixated at that age, rather than having been rejected as adults.

  2. Mira Prabhu Says:

    Reblogged this on mira prabhu and commented:
    Art Noble is a dear friend of mine who spreads his unique views on the phenomenon of love…and here are his views on an ugly subject that most of us would rather avoid, but which we should investigate in order to be aware and informed of its evil ramifications…

  3. ourworldinmotion Says:

    With all due respect, love has nothing to do with pedophilia. Yes, it may be a desire for intimacy that motivates a person to take sexual liberties with children, but love has very little to do with it. In quoting Maimonides, you hit the nail on the head for me. Treating others with reverence and respect certainly suggests the consent of the person who is the object of affection. This is where the pedophile deviates from expressing love. In a word, this is lust. Many engage in acts of sexual gratification by manipulation, and, heaven forbid, by force. I am certain you would agree this is not love. I would even go so far as to say that some might even forego sex due to their reverence and respect for another. This is what I would call true love. In saying this I am not talking about withholding love, but simply waiting for another’s consent. Pedophilia is abuse despite whatever form it takes. To prey on a powerless and emotionally frail child is totally unacceptable. We both unequivocally agree such is the case. Where I differ is in the belief that love has nothing to do with it.

    • thesacredfemale Says:

      Perhaps I should have put “love” in quote marks? One of the problems I see today is that sex is confused with love. Consent may have little to do with love? Dr Cindy Meston listed 2137 reasons Why Humans Have Sex in her paper by that name. Expressing love was only mentioned 8 times by over 1000 women respondents. Consent is weak. Consent coupled with desire to express love as a mechanism of unity is what I personally promote, eliminating 236 “reasons.”

      Back to the confusion. “There are a thousand ways to make love with a woman. When you add sex, you have 1001.” (Anon.) Children, particularly the little ones, are bundles of love. Sick minds will twist this, thinking sex is love. My feeling is execution is too good for them but it is the best we have.

      • ourworldinmotion Says:

        I love that quote: “There are a 1,000 ways to make love to a woman…” As I have gone through life, I have begun to understand that the word ‘love’ has many connotations. I would say human love might be a way to qualify it as an expression of intimacy. However, when we say “God is love,” that certainly takes love to a much different dimension. If you don’t care for such subjective qualifiers as ‘God’, you could use the term ‘unconditional love’ because it places love in a more objective and universal perspective.

  4. thesacredfemale Says:

    I see love as a spectrum of energy. We all see it a little differently, but recognizing it as a spectrum allows for different views. https://thesacredfemale.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/a-proposed-model-of-love/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: