Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

What is your opinion on pedophilia?

–1 vote
First state your beliefs on morals if you don't mind. If you thing it is wrong or undesirable what do you think the conditions are that create that (problem).
asked Nov 17, 2014 by DonnieDarko (830 points)
What is your definition of pedophilia?
Attraction to children under twelve by people over four years older. Second def: acting on it unconsensually and consensually(? And Can children consent?), just looking for anarchist perspective.
That type of definition sounds like something determined by the state (or certified medical professionals, etc.), and since I don't think like that I can't give a satisfactory (to me) answer.

Also, I'm not quite sure what you're asking.
Okay state your definition then answer if ud like, and yes it is by psychiatrists I believe. Firstly do you think it is wrong or undesirable, if yes see question. If no please explain why.
I don't really have a definition, nor do I desire to create one.

I think there are so many different situations, thoughts, and behaviors that could occur within the parameters set by the definition as described by the state, that trying to express a single answer on the matter is fruitless.

edited to add:

FWIW, I don't believe in the concept of morality as I generally understand it.
this pamphlet explores some ideas that are in relation to this subject, and you might find it of interest.

http://littleblackcart.com/Child-Sexuality.html
Thank you. I chose this because there are groups that say it is a natural sexuality and many anarchists speak of sexual liberation. I wanted to see what you guys had to say about this.

1 Answer

+2 votes
Some sporadic thoughts I have on the subject. These are more of 'trying to get at the root of the phenomenon.'

-Society sexualizes and objectifies young bodies. In porn you see a lot of 'almost illegal!' 'barely 18!' kind of stuff. So even though it's taboo, a lot of adults, especially men, are probably attracted to younger people even if they don't admit it.

-Modern life is like driving down a freeway. Sure you are behind the wheel, but the terrain is guiding you in a way that you have no real choice or freedom. I suspect many pedophiles (rapists and other abusers sometimes fit here as well) are the way they are because a young, innocent person is an arena where they can call the shots. Almost with the attitude: "for once in my life!"

-Power is addictive. This is kinda the opposite of my previous point. There are some who just like dominating over other people, even if its something they do a lot. Young people are simply an easy target.
answered Nov 18, 2014 by flip (3,980 points)
I sometimes wonder, though, if this 'almost illegal' stuff taps into something sorta biologically hardwired. It's a question I rarely if ever hear asked, honestly, through all the moral outrage, condemnation, etc. This is one of those hard topics, because most people don't get the difference between an attempt toward understanding a practice/relations and condoning that practice/relation.

I guess where I'm coming from is that during most of our collective primate/human past mating was done much younger than today, no? Could it be that the so-called 'life-expectancy' of today has run in tandem with Christian morality and State power (that is, this particular civilization) to foster what really is an arbitrary age?

I think it's clear different civilizations have had different concepts of acceptability. And what counts as 'pedophilia' within differing tribal/band societies, if any such concept exists?

edited for additional thoughts.
i have a book called "sex is not a natural act" (which i like mostly for the title).
removing culture from biology is no more relevant than removing biology from culture (i'm not even sure what i mean by biology here. so...)
I like your comment, AF. I was fumbling around the ideas and questions you presented much more clearly.
dot: I think I can see what you're saying. Any interpretation of 'biology' is just that, an interpretation. Even the notion of 'biology' or our 'physical being' is interpretation and is largely mitigated by and through our culture.

Baa: I'm glad you found it worthwhile.
I first read your comment AF and was disturbed that I couldn't convince myself that it wasn't true, and really don't want it to be. I figured I'd think on it and reply when ready.

In the meantime, dot made an interesting-but-not moralistic response, which reassured me as well as let me off the intellectual hook. :-p
thank you, AF, for finding clearer wording for my overly vague comments.

flip -- lol ;)
flip, thanks for responding, even if only tentatively for now.

I realize the question can be disturbing to many people. Perhaps a little more information may be helpful in adding new dimensions to thinking about this topic. I've been exploring primitivist/anti-civ critiques of the way we live currently, as well as reading what I can of differing indigenous peoples.

One of the counter-critiques of anti-civ I keep seeing is that it's inherently ableist and perhaps even homophobic on some deep level. This led me to ask the following:

http://anarchy101.org/8226/anti-civ-anarchy-transsexuality-completely-irreconcilable

Anok's answer contains within it the direction I was going when they ask the deeper question between civ and gender. I think this is applicable here as well to some extent. As I hinted in my initial comment, I think people confuse understanding with condoning, particularly in our (post-?)Christian civ. I think a hasty conclusion of a slippery slope then ensues: 'well, if 18 isn't a good age, why not 8 in your book?' This kind of thinking. It's prevalent.

However, I've come across no instances where a tightly-knit band society diddles with kiddies on any kind of scale nearing what happens in, say, the US. Even while these peoples have sex and mate earlier, there doesn't seem to me any of the weird-ass fetishizing of young people like there is in moralistic, repressed, alienated, 'civilized,' societies such as ours (I'm speaking more of the US. Europeans with greater contact with extended families may not be as prone). It seems to me that most, if not all, of these band/tribal peoples live more intimately with one another on an everyday level, for one thing. There's far more touching and 'sex' itself isn't so compartmentalized like we have it. I just don't think the desire really arises for large disparities in age on any large scale. I would suggest, too, that any tabus which arise in these cultures may arise after such an event and perceiving the destruction it leaves, rather than it being a moral rule prior to its occurrence.

What are the relations between sex and civ? Between our bodies and civ? Between touching others and civ? etc?

But, like Montaigne, I have to voice my uncertainty: Que sais-je?

Edit for typos/additional thoughts.
...