Assuming we have three 18 year old men.  One who is sexually attracted
to members of the opposite sex.  One who is sexually attracted to
members of the same sex.  And one who is sexually attracted to
children.
If all three men have NEVER acted on there desires would they all
three be viewed as "normal" to the majority of scientists who study
human sexuality?
Is it as a biological error or are they all three a common occurrence in
human history and thus natural, or both?

Hello and thank you for your question.

The leading scientific opinion on the 'homosexuality' side of your
question comes from the American Psychiatric Association  and the
American Psychological Association, since it is Psychiatrists and
Psychologists who are the medical scientists that study sexual
behavior:

"Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals
agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an
emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed
scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not
associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.
Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental
health professionals and society had biased information. In the past
the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in
therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers
examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea
that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be
untrue.

"In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance
of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from
the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two
years later, the American Psychological Association passed a
resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both
associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel
the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with
homosexual orientation."
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem? 
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#mentalillness

Pedophilia, on the other hand, is considered by these scientists to
constitute a mental disorder:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0890420254/103-6353385-0797436?v=glance
"The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR)
criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:
 A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually
arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual
activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years
or younger);
 B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or
fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
 C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older
than the child or children in Criterion A."

"The DSM is the standard classification of mental disorders used by
mental health professionals and provides clear, objective descriptions
of mental illnesses, based upon scientific research. Pedophilia is
categorized in the DSM-IV-TR as one of several paraphilic mental
disorders. The essential features of a Paraphilia are recurrent,
intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors that
generally involve nonhuman subjects, children, or other non-consenting
adults, or the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one?s partner.

"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a
criminal and immoral act and this is never considered normal or
socially acceptable behavior.

"Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H., Director, American Psychiatric
Association?s Division of Research states,
'there are no plans or processes set up that would lead to the removal
of the Paraphilias from their consideration as legitimate mental
disorders.'"

American Psychiatric Association Statement:
Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/apa_statement_jun03.htm

There is a view, I would call it an extreme and minority position,
that the categorization should possibly change:
"Some mental health professionals attending an annual APA convention
May 19 in San Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized
categories of mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism,
fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism - from the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)."
Psychiatric Association Debates Reclassifying Pedophilia
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200306%5CCUL20030611c.html

Search terms used:
homosexuality disease psychiatric
"Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" pedophilia 302.2  

Thanks again for bringing us your question
Google Answers Researcher
Richard-ga

---

Clarification of Answer by richard-ga on 20 Aug 2005 08:52 PDT

In reading the classification of pedophilia, you will notice that one
element of the disorder is that the person either "acted on these
sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress
or interpersonal difficulty."

So it's fair to say, in answer to your question, that if the person
has NEVER acted on thoughts of child sex and the thoughts are not
causing him marked distress or interpersonal difficulty, then yes, he
is "normal" in that respect.

-R

---

Request for Answer Clarification by sabvil-ga on 20 Aug 2005 19:45 PDT

The reply in your clarification answer you say. "That if the person
has NEVER acted on thoughts of child sex and the thoughts are not
causing him marked distress or interpersonal difficulty, then yes, he
is "normal" in that respect."

Was that the view of science or was that your own opinion?

And homosexuals can also have the thoughts they have cause marked
distress or interpersonal difficulty.  I see no difference in the
format either brain.

---

Clarification of Answer by richard-ga on 21 Aug 2005 04:50 PDT

Hello again.

Nothing in the Answer is based on my personal opinion -- the statement
that you asked about was taken directly from part (B) of
The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR)
criteria for Pedophilia (302.2):
" A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually
arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual
activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years
or younger);
 B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or
fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
 C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older
than the child or children in Criterion A."

-R

Outstanding reply.

A day old question. Presumption of comment ensues.

An interesting question and of course a "touchy" subject.

By inhibiting the desires of that intended by nature of
heterosexuality suggests another underlying problem. Inhibiting
natural and "normal" desires lends itself to further underlying
inadequecies of that which nature through it's existence, perceives to
be the norm. The basic attraction is "normal", yet to inhibit same is
not the norm.

The other two scenarios are not natural. Nature requires an end result
such as procreation. Neither of the other two as described offer an
end result of productivity other than to serve a form of satisfaction
toward those unnatural and unproductive tendencies. Both may indeed be
biological errors. (The age old argument of nature vs nurture fits in
rather well here). Neither are a natural and outwardly productive
tendency toward continual life. Both are imploding and retroproductive
unnatural acts to satisfy the disturbance. Neither is a choice. For
those whom purport that unnatural acts are choices, this is far from
true. If the argument was true, then natural heterosexuals as nature
intended, could "decide" to be attracted to the same sex. Yeah, like
that makes sense! Homosexuality and the other forms of unnaturalness
are simply and sadly a quirk which has occurred. Likening
homosexuality to say a syndrome, is one way of accepting and
understanding our differences. It just happens to be a way of life
from the perspective of those so afflicted, yet to them they are not
"afflicted" as it is their reality, not that of nature.

No doubt there will be others with varying points of view. Before you
lot attempt to attack my logic, re-read my words as an entity residing
on our planet regardless of your inclinations. All are accepted as I
trust that anyone like myself is also. I reside within the largest
minority group of all -the white heterosexual middle income earner.

As for the paedophiles, I would be interested to hear the comments
from a homosexual that the paedophile attraction is NOT an unnatural
attraction.

Above all, our children must be protected and children come first in
all considerations of any relationship issues. Can anyone argue
against that?

Silver

The argument that sex must be for procreation only, and that is what
nature intended, is a bit narrow.  If it were true, then every couple
that chose not to have children would be unnatural.  Couples who
decide to be sterilized after deciding they've had enough children
would, too.  Adults who choose to remain single and people of
religious or spiritual faith who choose celibacy, all of them would be
considered "afflicted," as Silver puts it.

The bonobo, a type of chimpanzee, is an example of an animal which, in
the wild, will have sex with other members of its group, even those of
the same sex, as a social activity.  Few of these interactions result
in fertilization.

I am writing in specific reference to the comments about
homosexuality, as I believe that one's sexual preference is a private
matter and is no one else's business.  What happens between two
consenting adults is never a matter of public concern unless they
endanger themselves by exposing themselves to disease.

I agree with Silver completely with regard to pedophilia.  I find it
interesting that the illusionary debate about it is still simmering. 
I have done some research into the whole thing, which apparently
started years ago when a group of the APA people wanted to "downgrade"
the severity of the diagnosis after some research showed that some
victims of it weren't as adversely affected as was previously assumed.
 Nowhere did I find anything from the APA saying that they want to
define it as okay.  I think it is safe to say that it is never okay,
although different cultures define age of consent differently.

bibliotech

<b> sabvil-ga</b> said:
<blockquote>And homosexuals can also have the thoughts they have cause marked
distress or interpersonal difficulty.  I see no difference in the
format either brain.</blockquote>

It must be noted that the APA made a statement (citation needed) to
the effect that distress and interpersonal difficulty did not come
from homosexual orientation, but that therapy might help a person deal
with distress and interpersonal difficulty caused because of others'
poor treatment of someone in regards  to his or her sexual
orientation. In essence, therapies help people cope with the
discrimination and isolation caused by societal biases.