Well, Sigmund Freud theorized that we have an unconscious mind. “Information stored there is unavailable to awareness thus is hidden. For example, you plan to go to a party. You can’t find your shoes then you become involved in a lengthy phone call. So, what’s the unconscious info? You didn’t want to go to the party. According to Freud, that desire
to avoid the party was unconscious. Also, he stated that people use defense mechanisms, to push painful or unacceptable ideas out of our conscious. That way, we can protect
ourselves from feelings of anxiety, guilt and shame”.
Ok I understand this part of Freud’s theory.
But how does it apply it the topic? What does it suggest…about us? 
What are the 3 levels of consciousness?
what the fuck
yes and no. according to an ezperiment by aome frenvh scientists, an act happens irregardless of the observer.
in fact, many scientists do not agree with what you said as well.
intersting subject though.
if pedophiles can be the product of their environment, so can gays, and other folks with gender identification issues…
Conscious, Preconscious, and Unconscious
Freud had a knack for avoiding falsifiability.
ethics
:shake: Silly me, I forgot to relate it to the topic. Anyways, I believe this attraction that pedophiles have is an idea we are all born with. Going back to Freud, he says the mind has three basic psychological structures: the id, the ego, and the super-ego. The id is basically “I want what I want & I want it now” and you get a release of energy or emotion that brings personal gratification, relief, or pleasure. The ego stands for reason & good sense. The super-ego acts as the conscious & floods the ego with feelings of guilt and shame when we think or do something that society defines as wrong.
Notice how we see children as cute. This attraction, I believe, falls under the id. Why? We get an positive feeling of seeing cute children. Now, the ego tells the id that it’s ok
to have an attraction to children but the ego warns the id if you attempt to do something you are not suppose to with them, there will be consequences. Finally, the super-ego
back ups the ego by telling the id the consequences of doing said action; “Don’t follow your urge, as you’ll be blacklisted by society and your life will be miserably”. Now, this is why we don’t have this urge. But, some reason, the super-ego doesn’t kick in for some and the person is left with his urge and knowing that urge is wrong but without the shame, that attraction can’t be killed.
Like I said, the only way to help them is to have help available to them. They need someone to talk about their urges and maybe, just maybe, the super-ego can kick in and
kill that sexually urge. But so far, we haven’t done much to help them. I pray we can come up with a plan in the future to decrease these encounters.
I think my psychology teacher would be proud of me, knowing I’m using what I learned in her class. 
I hope I answer your question.
that lead singer who made that sexual atrocities is truly fucked up, and how in the hell a mother would offer her own child?
It’s not surprising that pedophilia, like most forms of sexual attraction, is linked to biological underpinnings. And if we could find those biological markers it seems tempting to use that knowledge to prevent crimes. However, consider the danger of using biological predispositions as a means to take proactive action against someone. This could very well lead to people losing their freedoms simply because they’re a biological risk for partaking in certain behaviors. Personally I feel this is a very slippery slope, that if applied to the likes of pedophilia could very well lead to a host of other atrocities. I speak not just of the obvious uses of taking action against those with the markers of thieves, murderers, or rapists, but imagine governments who seek out those who carry the markers of free-thinkers.
Ultimately, pedophilia as a crime hinges on the fact that children are not seen as being able to give consent to sex. The age at which this autonomy can be exercised varies wildly depending on culture and local law. But while physical age is correlated with higher cognitive functioning and rational decision making it’s very far from perfect. I’m sure we’ve all seen individuals that are far more mature or immature than their physical age might imply. So it seems to me that using physical age as a determinate of rights is a lazy solution to determine autonomy. Logistically, it might make sense. But from a purely ethical standpoint, I have to question whether governments and societies should have the right to restrict others simply because of their physical age.
Sex, like breathing, eating, and drinking, is necessary for life. I find it interesting that for the vast majority of human history people have been having sex and children at ages that now would be deemed inappropriate. Nature clearly feels that humans are ready for sex and procreation around the age of 12 or 13, and thousands of our ancestors likely had children during those ages. It wasn’t too long ago when most of Western society was having kids that young. And even today many societies have children at those ages. So if one feels that it’s wrong for children so young to be having sex, the human race has been fucking up for a long, long, time.
The idea that children are sexually innocent creatures is incredibly false and built on prudish and narrow minded values that hold onto the ideal childhood innocence. It’s very common for children as young as 2 and 3 to masturbate. Now these children might not know exactly what to make of those feelings, but clearly there’s an early natural drive that manifests in some children. Children are also capable of having crushes and quasi-romantic feelings at very early ages, going through efforts to maximize their time with the focus of their affection and becoming jealous to rivals. From a purely biological and evolutionary standpoint, the question to me then becomes again…why?
On another note, the fact that sexual attraction itself is largely biological makes me question the evolutionary advantage to certain forms of sexual attraction. What benefit is it to the species to have non-hetero sexualities? What benefit is it to have pedophiles? Clearly there must be some evolutionary advantage to having such traits in a population or else it wouldn’t exist.
That seems like an idea copied straight out of Aristotle’s Tripartite Soul.
white shadow made an interesting point when I asked the question.
because there are so many of us, and we are the only specied that can control our evolution, those questions no longer apply when asking.
look at the Amish. they have a genetic disorder that makes them have bowed legs. this isn’t beneficial in any way but happens often. this is only possible because society ensures the survival of many. even the weak. these mutations common only because there are 6+ billion humans.
what should be rare is no longer rare becAuse there are 6 billion humans.
also, I remember reading an article someone posted on this site saying that many homos aren’t homos and instead confused an infatuation with the penis as actual want and rationale themselves into believing that a infatuation is full blown attraction and want while ignoring their want of a female. porn isn’t helping neither.