I would defy any man to claim there aren't times when he sees a nicely built young schoolgirl in the street and has a fleeting thought as to what he would like to do with her. But that's just fantasy.

What encourages a man to rape babies, toddlers and preteens I have no idea. It's said rape is about power, but who wants power over a baby?

ian wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:


I think the only exponential rise has been the hysteria levels about paedophilia, rather than the incidence of it. 
One could argue that since some other "bogeymen" have become protected species, people have just focused all their contempt towards a more socially acceptable object of hate.

____ wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 5:05pm:


People who like to stick their dicks where they don't belong. The age of the arse hole receiving the buggering only determines if it is a socially acceptable illness or a criminal one.

Quantum wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 5:47pm:



And if you look at it truly objectively, the only place a dick belongs is in the vagina of a nubile female.  So, if they're being put anywhere else - a mouth, an arse, a post menopausal vagina - they're all as "mentally ill" as one another. 
So, if that sounds absurd, what principle differentiates the "mentally ill" paedophiles from the "mentally sound"  arse bandits or granny grabbers?

In regards to the initial question, I think it's possibly a combination of the two.

In some cases, I'd expect that a "switch" of sorts will be moved towards the dark side by bad nurture of a particular type. In other cases the switch may not exist, but maybe a different type of switch exists which will move somebody towards a different disorder.

Nevertheless, all of our behaviours fall somewhere within the bell curve of humanity, and most of them will be within the "normal" range.
However, none of us will fit the description of being on the peak of average for all counts. That would be very unusual in itself.

If too many people were on the extremities of what is considered "normal", it would obviously impact on what we consider the best chance for survival.
And we only exist in the way we do today because of the behavioural genes which have been passed down through the generations and have somewhat lessened the prevalence of those who aren't good for survival.
Of course it now only takes one barbarian with nuclear weapons to wipe out billions.

It's pretty average for men to not be attracted to children in a sexual way because it's innately felt that this is not helpful to human survival for the reason that young girls aren't equipped physically or mentally to become mothers.
By the same token, it's pretty average for men to feel that they should put their life on the line if needs be for the survival of women and children, as it only takes a few men to repopulate and women are a necessity to raise children. This still holds true today no matter what attitudes about equality dictate.

If we end up killing most of the planet and population through over-survival or a nuclear stuffup, then I suppose a "new normal" will eventually emerge.

... wrote on May 12^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:


So now women past menopause shouldn't have sex? What kind of freak are you? And enjoy your divorce when you get to about 50 or so.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 13^th, 2013 at 5:42am:


There are no shoulds or should nots in an objective view.  They are moral judgements which have no place in the sort of scientific analysis which would be required to determine if something was a genuine mental illness.