Critique of Meta-Analysis Prevalence Pedophilia Hebephilia
|
There is a basic interpretive problem. Sexual response is not the same thing as sexual preference.This is acknowledged in the paper cited. The terms are used differently in different contexts. So the way you state it, if stated publicly, where the words have a common accepted meaning, would be highly offensive to many. The fact here is about sexual arousal, fantasy, etc. Not sexual preference. Wikipedia:
"Sexual attraction" isn't the same thing as sexual arousal. One may be aroused by something and not attracted to it. The confusion may be common, particularly among people with poor impulse control. Yes, the attraction is common, very common. In the study, there is a comparison between *arousal* with phallometric studies to images. That measures an involuntary response, not mediated through the cerebral cortex. It does not define or establish a diagnosis of pedophilia. It would mean that an element of that diagnosis might be present. That the reflex response might be stronger with children does not establish the far more complex behavioral patterns of a pedophile, as one who has a paraphilia. There are some very good points in the article. It's pointed out there that hebephilia is not abnormal. My sense would be that it is highly natural, it could easily be instinctive and not dysfunctional. Tribal societies commonly set the age of marriage at onset of menstruation, i.e., onset of puberty (and early pubescence could be an ideal time to establish connection, in that context). However, to mix this up with a paraphilia is one of the things the article is warning about. And, then, the entire topic is Mirkin Phase 1. So if one simply points to fact, it causes disruption. And then you can point to the stupid people. Or we can. It's tempting to me, too. Phase 1 topics are related to reactivity, a basic human trait. Reactivity is not *reasonable.* Ever. It will use or employ reason, to justify itself, but that is not the cause. Mirkin had the support of his university..... those are people who would actually read him instead of just glancing at it and going ballistic at what he was supposedly advocating. "Hey, let's identify all topics where people have violent reactions as Phase I and then legalize all of them, since we will anyway, because doesn't Phase I imply there will be Phases 2 and 3, and some Phase I topics have gone on to 2 and/or 3?) Cannibalism? No problem. Alleviate resource shortages, and waste of valuable protein. Abortion, of course there is no problem with that, but there are those pesky limits on age of fetus. How about any pre-adult? After all, why should people be forced to care for these little parasites? In fact, how about criminals? Consider the deterrent value! Store sign: Shoplifters Will Be Eaten. I bet that would be more effective than Free Ride to Police Station for Shoplifters. New menu item for MacDonald's, with the tag, "Tested Prion-free!" The essence is that, in the paper, what is tested is arousability by images or perhaps videos. That is a kind of "philia," an attraction or cause of attraction. The disorders are much more than the presence of that philia. Hebephilia is not a disorder, it's a condition, and as studied here, it does not represent any active pursuit or behavior-driving urge. If someone is *exclusively hebephilic*, it's a problem. But that arousability is higher at the age involved would not indicate exclusivity at all. There is also a participation bias in the study, it is difficult to extrapolate results to the full population of men. The study points this out. This is a scientific study, a meta-analysis. They use a *controversial definition* of pedophile and hebephile, not accepted by academic consensus. The definition is arguably useful for the purpose of the study, but could lead to confusion when people then read the terms with more popular meanings, which is what BoyWiki is doing. This is common: people who are attached to outcomes are not likely to read neutrally and accurately. Mirkin is a really good example. Mirkin has been badly misread, and so commonly that he is like a litmus test for society's ability to just examine data without attachment to conclusions. Now, the problem with this meta-analysis: the conclusions. The conclusions, in fact, I would agree with, in general. Notice that it does not advocate changes in age of consent, per se. I think that as society matures, we will see some changes, and I doubt that the age of consent will go up except maybe in some places where it is very low or non-existent. Really, what is being advocated is a shift in attitude, away from hysterical condemnation. There was a recent Cracked article that covers that idea and approach. http://www.cracked.com/article_20981_5-ways-were-making-pedophilia-worse.html The problem, though, is that the data on "pedophile percentage" is used in that article conclusion, making it useless for any general reproduction; it will then be misunderstood. I would have suggested coining terms, instead of using definitions that could be misunderstood. Perhaps "Pedo-responsive" and "Hebe-responsive." Or "reactive." The *facts* in the paper could be important for society in general to know, and especially decision-makers, legislators. So it is a shame that it gets stirred in with "pedophilia."
|
