Child Prostitution

[Leonard James]

Our lack of faith in the law enforcement system is based upon the fact that it has failed, which is not in dispute. That doesn't mean it fails every time, but it does mean that we are not assured of its efficacy. Would it be better if we just shut up and pretended everything was ok?

Definitely not! When it is wrong we should do all we can to get it put right.

[Hope]

I don't see how you can say that such mutations are "few and far between" when they occur in large numbers in every generation.

Do they?  Surely, part of the repulsion many of us feel over this evil is that it involves a relatively small proportion of the populace.  If you look at the various paedophile rings that have come to light in Rotherham, etc. the perps generally number around a dozen.  Yes, they may traffic tens (even fifties) of children, and may send them to tens of paedophiles across the contry, but those paedophikles are small numbers in any given local populations.

[Leonard James]

Do they?  Surely, part of the repulsion many of us feel over this evil is that it involves a relatively small proportion of the populace.  If you look at the various paedophile rings that have come to light in Rotherham, etc. the perps generally number around a dozen.  Yes, they may traffic tens (even fifties) of children, and may send them to tens of paedophiles across the contry, but those paedophikles are small numbers in any given local populations.

Of course they are when looked at in a small population, as are most mutations, but you must remember that when taken globally the number is enormous.

As I pointed out, that is the way evolution works ... it is not interested in our "morality", its sole purpose is to survive and reproduce.

[Hope]

Of course they are when looked at in a small population, as are most mutations, but you must remember that when taken globally the number is enormous.

Surely if a mutation is small in a normal population, it remains small in a global population - unless there is a particularly high incidence in one or more particular populations.

[Leonard James]

Of course they are when looked at in a small population, as are most mutations, but you must remember that when taken globally the number is enormous.

Surely if a mutation is small in a normal population, it remains small in a global population - unless there is a particularly high incidence in one or more particular populations.

Please don't be obtuse, Hope. The proportion is small, but the actual number globally is enormous.

[Udayana]

May well have been said before, above, but this has nothing to do with evolution or "mutations" except incidentally.

[Leonard James]

May well have been said before, above, but this has nothing to do with evolution or "mutations" except incidentally.

It has everything to do with mutations and evolution. If you are going to play the card of "nurture", just remember that unless an individual is genetically biased towards a certain behaviour, nurture will have no effect on him.

[Udayana]

It is just a gross oversimplification. next you'll be claiming that some people have a genetic inclination to post rubbish on forums!

[Shaker]

It is just a gross oversimplification. next you'll be claiming that some people have a genetic inclination to post rubbish on forums!

Well, now that you mention it ...

[Leonard James]

It is just a gross oversimplification. next you'll be claiming that some people have a genetic inclination to post rubbish on forums!

If the cap fits!

[Harrowby Hall]

May well have been said before, above, but this has nothing to do with evolution or "mutations" except incidentally.

It has everything to do with mutations and evolution. If you are going to play the card of "nurture", just remember that unless an individual is genetically biased towards a certain behaviour, nurture will have no effect on him.

You are leading yourself into a blind alley. It is little to do with "mutation". Mutations are completely random - paraphilias are sufficiently common and sufficiently systematised  to rule out a totally haphazard process like mutation. There may well be a genetic component, but it is more likely to have been inherited than spontaneously occurring.

Paraphilias appear to be the result of complex interactions between nature (genetic inheritance) and experience at sensitive stages of development. Human sexuality is the most complex of any organism on the planet, having components concerned with reproduction and relationships. With the possible exception of bonobos, human sexuality has an expressive function found nowhere else among animals. There is clearly a greater chance of some pathological development occurring.

In addition to basic genetic influences (which is what I think you mean by "mutation") there are events and influences which are both pre- and post-partuition which appear to affect the likelihood of some kind of paraphilia. Influences may include maternal hormone balance, inappropriate neurological development, parenting behaviour, family dynamics early child care  and educational practices and so on.

[Leonard James]

You are leading yourself into a blind alley. It is little to do with "mutation". Mutations are completely random - paraphilias are sufficiently common and sufficiently systematised  to rule out a totally haphazard process like mutation. There may well be a genetic component, but it is more likely to have been inherited than spontaneously occurring.

Paraphilias appear to be the result of complex interactions between nature (genetic inheritance) and experience at sensitive stages of development. Human sexuality is the most complex of any organism on the planet, having components concerned with reproduction and relationships. With the possible exception of bonobos, human sexuality has an expressive function found nowhere else among animals. There is clearly a greater chance of some pathological development occurring.

In addition to basic genetic influences (which is what I think you mean by "mutation") there are events and influences which are both pre- and post-partuition which appear to affect the likelihood of some kind of paraphilia. Influences may include maternal hormone balance, inappropriate neurological development, parenting behaviour, family dynamics early child care  and educational practices and so on.

You obviously know more about genetics than I do, but one thing is perfectly clear to me. Some people are more susceptible to non-genetic influences on their sexuality than others ... identical twin studies have shown this. So what can the reason be other than genetical?

[Udayana]

There are identical twin studies of paedophilia ?

[Leonard James]

There are identical twin studies of paedophilia ?

I have no idea, but since it is a sexuality variant, I would think the same causes apply.

Furthermore, I'm sure there are many men with paedophilic inclinations who are able to repress such feelings, just as some homosexual people can.

Once again that can only be due to genetics.

[Harrowby Hall]

There are identical twin studies of paedophilia ?

I have no idea, but since it is a sexuality variant, I would think the same causes apply.

Furthermore, I'm sure there are many men with paedophilic inclinations who are able to repress such feelings, just as some homosexual people can.

Once again that can only be due to genetics.

You seem to have a very simplistic view of human child development. Once conception has taken place, the genetic component is fixed. Everything that happens to the developing organism from that point on is the result of "nurture".

There are countless influences acting on the unborn child which interact with the genetic influences to produce all kinds of consequences. It is extremely unlikely that paraphilias are simply "inherited". There may be a genetic disposition to a particular behaviour, but it will almost certainly require some kind of environmental experience to activate it.

Even monozygotic twins in the same uterus have different environmental influences and experiences - they occupy different positions, have separate placentas with possibly different maternal blood flows and so on.

As a matter of interest, who do you think one inherits deviance from - father or mother?

[Leonard James]

You seem to have a very simplistic view of human child development. Once conception has taken place, the genetic component is fixed. Everything that happens to the developing organism from that point on is the result of "nurture".

There are countless influences acting on the unborn child which interact with the genetic influences to produce all kinds of consequences. It is extremely unlikely that paraphilias are simply "inherited". There may be a genetic disposition to a particular behaviour, but it will almost certainly require some kind of environmental experience to activate it.

Even monozygotic twins in the same uterus have different environmental influences and experiences - they occupy different positions, have separate placentas with possibly different maternal blood flows and so on.

Yes, I know all that, but I am simply pointing out the fact that an unborn child's reaction to its surroundings depends on its genetic makeup. Obviously all children don't react to their environment in the same way ... it depends on their genetic makeup.

As a matter of interest, who do you think one inherits deviance from - father or mother?

You don't necessarily have to inherit a deviance (although you can, of course), it can arise because of a certain genetic combination at fertilisation, to which both the mother and father contribute but neither of which have the same deviance.

[Udayana]

Sorry Len, but this is just plain wrong. Have you any example in mind?

[Leonard James]

Sorry Len, but this is just plain wrong. Have you any example in mind?

Can you just tell me why it is "plain wrong"?

[Hope]

Yes, I know all that, but I am simply pointing out the fact that an unborn child's reaction to its surroundings depends on its genetic makeup. Obviously all children don't react to their environment in the same way ... it depends on their genetic makeup.

Which explains, of course, why identical twins (ie with identical genetic make-ups) end up behaving in identical fashions; NOT!!

On a somewhat different, but related issue, I was intrigued to hear that an entry for this year's National Eisteddfod writing competition contains elements of child abuse.This has only just come to light, but has been in the hands of the police since March.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33748599

[Udayana]

Sorry Len, but this is just plain wrong. Have you any example in mind?

Can you just tell me why it is "plain wrong"?

Just because we don't have any evidence (or I may not know of any) where "deviance" (??) is shown to be inherited. And the idea that genes from both parents may combine to form a new one really needs some kind of evidential, factual, support.

No doubt most of human behaviour, including sexuality, is determined and/or influenced by our genetic inheritance but there are too many other factors in effect for that to be a useful starting point in understanding child prostitution, paedophile rings or grooming gangs.
 

[Sriram]

I know I often talk of epigenetics...but that does not mean that others should not talk about it!

Every aspect of our behavior cannot be explained by genetics. In fact, most behavioural aspects can be explained only by epigenetics.  Lifestyle can influence a person and his/her progeny to develop deviant and abnormal behaviour....through epigenetic processes.

[Leonard James]

Just because we don't have any evidence (or I may not know of any) where "deviance" (??) is shown to be inherited. And the idea that genes from both parents may combine to form a new one really needs some kind of evidential, factual, support.

No doubt most of human behaviour, including sexuality, is determined and/or influenced by our genetic inheritance but there are too many other factors in effect for that to be a useful starting point in understanding child prostitution, paedophile rings or grooming gangs.

1. All human behaviour can only have a nature/nurture source.

2. All humans do not respond in the same way to their nurture.

3. The difference can only be caused by their genetic make-up.

4. So ultimately our genes designate the final result of nature/nurture.

That is all I am claiming, and it is only my opinion.

[Udayana]

Len, Sriram,

This approach, just attributing all behaviour to genetics/epigentics is too broad brush to be of any use at all,  it is just a reduction to banality.

Unless, for each behaviour, you can tell me which genes, switches, proteins and hormones are involved, there is no point in taking you seriously.

I had biueberries at breakfast this morning. This is because of genetics/epigenetics? Not because they were in abundance in the market yesterday?

[Leonard James]

Len, Sriram,

This approach, just attributing all behaviour to genetics/epigentics is too broad brush to be of any use at all,  it is just a reduction to banality.

Unless, for each behaviour, you can tell me which genes, switches, proteins and hormones are involved, there is no point in taking you seriously.

I had biueberries at breakfast this morning. This is because of genetics/epigenetics? Not because they were in abundance in the market yesterday?

OK, dearie, we'll leave it at that then. 

[Sriram]

Len, Sriram,

This approach, just attributing all behaviour to genetics/epigentics is too broad brush to be of any use at all,  it is just a reduction to banality.

Unless, for each behaviour, you can tell me which genes, switches, proteins and hormones are involved, there is no point in taking you seriously.

I had biueberries at breakfast this morning. This is because of genetics/epigenetics? Not because they were in abundance in the market yesterday?

Genetics and epigenetics provide the inclination. Immediate circumstances decide specifically what a person does. 

A person could be inclined to drink but whether he drinks Jack Daniels, Scotch or a local brew...depends on his circumstances. Similarly with vegetarianism,  sexuality and all other qualities.