PEDOPHILIA CRIME CONCEPTS BASICALLY BUILT ON MORALLY BANKRUPT WESTERN PSEDOSCEINCES

                              Theoretical Rough Draft Part - I

INTRODUCTION:

Pedophilia and incest  are mostly seen as  complicit  and are universally condemned as reprehensible human sexual behaviours especially in the western world today. However, historically, these two practices have played the most crucial or indispensable role as most important in the evolution and  survival of  human race throughout their past  history. However in our present day MSM and social media reports, discussions and particularly in the academic literatures and the paper publications  a fragrant disregard or lack or absence of reliable, objective, scientific studies on this topic  specially on the  pubescent age  sexual attractions, desires and relations remains as a significant obstacle, particularly in the Western world. Therefore, in this present study I would like to mainly focus on this particular human age related adolescent sexual behaviours and practice branded as “pedophilia” in west, pertaining to the human sexual attraction and desires towards pubescent sexuality  and  practices particularly  relating to the prepubescent  girls.

STIGMA AND BIAS ON PEDOPHILIA RESEARCH:

 The heavy stigma attached to so called “pedophilia” sex  in modern societies has led to research on the subject, being tainted by biased moral judgment, rendering many of these academic  studies pseudoscientific. Consequently, the only viable approach for an unbiased study of these phenomena is to apply Darwinian principles of evolution alongside contemporary game theory. By using these two frameworks combined with the historical records, we can attempt to impartially understand how such behaviours might have contributed to human survival and social development. This method allows us to bypass the moral overlays of modern Western thought, which often label pedophilia not just as a crime but as psychological disorder, deviance paraphilia, perversions etc., thereby creating a skewed perspective on this human sexual behavior. This prejudiced pedophilia research and classification has significantly shaped contemporary medical and legal frameworks, which criminalize pedophilia based on what can be argued as flawed moral, medical, and legal standards deeply rooted in Western culture.

A CRITIQUE OF WESTERN MEDICAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS:

The modern Western medical and legal frameworks that criminalize ‘pedophilia’ are largely built on what can be argued as fraudulent moral, medical, legal standards that are deeply rooted in the modern Western worldview. These corrupt academical standards, exemplified by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), have been highly influential in shaping global health doctrines throughout the 20th century. Their frameworks until the first of 20^th century  used to pathologize behaviours like adultery, prostitution, and homosexuality, including incest even the masturbation, by broadly labelling them as mental disorders, sexual deviations, perversions, paraphilia’s and dysfunctions. Such moral and academical judgments were common throughout human history, criminalizing a range of human sexual behaviours under the pretext of mental health and societal protection.

SHIFT IN MORAL STANDARDS TO CRIMINALISE PEDOPHILIA

It was during the second half of the 20th century  academical institutions began to decriminalize and destigmatize practices like adultery, prostitution, incest, homosexuality, masturbation etc., recognizing these as matters of personal choice rather than moral or mental failings. However, in an ironic twist, they increasingly focused on the prosecution of pubescent age sexual behaviours as pedophilia or  paraphilia’s, rigorously criminalizing it with the same flowed subjective moral, psychological and medical rhetoric used  to broadly condemn, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, incest and masturbation etc.,  now turned it on,  what was previously accepted  adolescent age sexual desires,  attractions  and relations that were sanctioned as morally good and beneficial to the society. Terms like sexual deviations, perversions, moral degradation, and family dysfunction now repurposed criminalize to enforce these modern prohibitions. This shift in moral standards reveals a hypocritical stance in  behaviours once criminalized were gradually normalized, while newly coined terms, like pedophilia, became the focal points of extreme condemnation of adult with adolescent love relations as pedophilia under similar medical and moral frameworks.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF MARRIAGES AT THE AGE OF ADOLESCENT

Allow me to delve briefly into a noteworthy historical context, providing essential background before proceeding further with my discussion. Throughout history, almost all societies normalized marriage around the age of puberty, often between 10 to 13 for girls. In ancient Rome and Greece, girls married shortly after puberty, with examples like Julia the Elder in Rome and Spartan practices. Medieval Europe saw child marriages among nobility, such as Margaret Beaufort  in England (1455) married at 12 and gave birth at the age of 13 to King Henry VII , while the Church set marriage ages at 12 for girls and 14 for boys. In Islamic societies, early marriages were common, exemplified by Aisha’s marriage to Muhammad, and the Ottoman Empire used child marriages for political alliances. Hindu and South Asian traditions promoted child marriage to ensure purity and familial ties, while imperial China and feudal Japan married girls in their early teens for familial and social stability. Native American tribes and African societies also practiced early marriage as part of cultural rites. In Renaissance Europe and colonial America, girls often married in their mid-teens, reflecting societal norms. These practices, rooted in cultural, economic, and social contexts, contrast sharply with modern understandings of child rights and development, which universally condemn such practices today.

HISTORICAL ACCEPTANCE OF PREPUBESCENT SEXUAL RELATIONS AND MARRIAGES

It is essential to recognize that, contrary to the current Western moral views on pedophilia historical records shows that our forebears, until very recently, not only accepted but actively practiced pubescent sexual relations, what we now label as pedophilia. Child marriages were widespread, seen as good and beneficial for the individual and the broader community. These unions were often justified on as occurring at ideal age when prepubescent girls entering sexual maturity, marked by gonadarche, the onset of hormonal changes the biological transition leading to sexual maturation. This practice was believed to protect young girls from the risks associated with their burgeoning sexual attraction, desires, potentially leading to behaviors that could cross legal and social boundaries, thus endangering their future and societal harmony.

 

EARLY MARRIAGE AS A SAFEGUARD FOR MORAL AND SOCIAL INTEGRITY

The traditional belief was that early marriage safeguarded a girl's social, moral, and familial integrity. It was thought that marrying young would deter girls from engaging in inappropriate behavior driven by natural adolescent curiosity and perceived heightened sexual attractions and desires, which might otherwise lead them to seek illicit relationships outside marriage. By transferring responsibility from parents to husbands, early marriage ensured a girl's safety and honor. This historical context challenges the modern Western perspective, suggesting that the stigmatization  of adolescent age sexual behaviors,  labelling it as pedophilia offence,  is not an eternal moral absolute but a relatively recent development influenced by changing cultural and ideological norms.

 

MORAL INCONSISTENCY AND LEGAL JUDGMENTS IN CRIMINALIZING PEDOPHILIA

If one aims to logically argue that pedophilia is morally reprehensible and causes irreparable societal harm, thereby justifying its criminalization as a heinous offense, then, consistency demands that this logic also be applied to behaviours like adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, incest, and masturbation. Historically, these were all criminalized, almost in all societies until the mid-20th century, purportedly because they were thought to lead to social decay that  fails to  protect the future generation  same as the western child protection agencies believe in the case of pedophilia today. This shows, the current decriminalization or non-criminalization of these behaviours, including consensual incest in some jurisdictions, starkly contrasts with the ongoing criminalization of pedophilia. If societal harm is the moral criterion for such legal judgments, this selective application of law reveals a profound moral inconsistency. It suggests that contemporary sexual morality and legal policies are not based on objective harm or ethical principles but rather reflect arbitrary prejudices on shifting cultural biases, casting doubt on the rationality and fairness of current legal categorizations.

 

REASSESSING IDEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SEXUAL OFFENSE LAWS FAMILY ETHICS  AND ITS OVERZEALOUS MORAL PANIC INDOCTRINATION

 

To emphasize the previous “moral inconsistency” point further, applying it to the modern day family ethical concerns, of protecting their mothers sisters  wife and children  from the outside influence of deviant predatory sexually pervert behaviours, including  rape. However, today they accept  that the decriminalization of adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, masturbation or incest does  not pose such threat to their mothers, sisters, wives, or children, but views  only pedophilia catastrophically destroys  the life of the sexually innocent children in theirs as well others family. They first of all, needs to check their own mental faculty, of reasoning and moral, logical consistency first. This attitude demonstrates, their prejudiced emotional response due overzealous moral panic indoctrination rather than a reasoned ethical principle. True moral and legal coherence requires either uniformly criminalizing all these behaviours. OR acknowledge that societal perceptions and NOT the inherent harm, drives the unique demonization of pedophilia in the modern age. This realization compels a reassessment of the ideological basis underpinning contemporary sexual offense laws.

 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF EARLY-AGE HUMAN SEXUALITY

Building on this historical prevalence of early-age sexual relations, once celebrated as vital to societal well-being, remains in  stark contrasts with its vilification as “pedophilia” under todays Western frameworks. Far from being inherently harmful, these unions, rooted in child marriages, were endorsed across cultures for hundreds of thousands of years as a natural progression—girls primed at puberty to bear children, ensuring familial stability and societal continuity. Parents in ancient times saw this as safeguarding their daughters’ moral integrity, channeling sexual attraction into sanctioned bonds that bolstered community cohesion. Yet, today’s selective outrage deems only pedophilia a catastrophic threat to their children below 18 age,” while decriminalized acts like adultery or homosexuality escape similar scrutiny. This inconsistency exposes a cultural bias, not a reasoned ethic, as the true foundation of current laws. To cling to this double standard—excusing some behaviors yet demonizing prepubescent age sexual  relations—is to embrace hypocrisy over logic. A coherent reassessment of sexual offense laws must confront this truth: societal perception, not objective harm, drives the stigmatization, demanding a rethink of their ideological roots.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I neither justify nor make presumption on pedophilia. I simply want to know its proof of concept based on my critical historical study findings, to scrutinize its scientific validity based on true or objective facts that could clear many of my questions on this subject matter. Moreover, I feel it is my historical duty because it can destroy or save millions of human lives in deciding whether they are the most dangerous sexual perverts, predator or child rapist who should be incarcerated if not killed or some quite normal innocent people.

I am ready to remove delete any part words or sentence of this paper if anyone proves it is built on unscientific grounds which offend the feelings of some peoples. Ask any question and I will answer it as soon as it is possible for me.

I welcome anyone who likes to contribute into this theoretical paper specially to its second part. Write to me in the comment box. Any help in this appreciated.

Copyright  ©  Valerian Texeira.                                                                               Subject to revision, addition, omission and refinement.

All are free to make of use of this theoretical paper it except of commercial use which need written permission