Did you know that shorter men are more likely to be pedophiles than taller men? (Also low IQs)

What I find interesting is the somewhat skewed definition of 'paraphilia' and the proposed 'unknown causes'. Paraphilia is supposed to be abnormal sexual desires, typically involving extreme or dangerous activities. Whereas the society we live in perpetuates the abnormal as the norm.

Consider the criminalisation of what a common but is now a taboo practice like female circumcision. It is now deemed 'Female genital mutilation'. Whereas women are free to undergo breast augmentation or even other invasive procedures to 'feel better about themselves', but that's not mutilation of any kind.
So many people feel 'abnormal' unless they have thick layers of make-up (with processed chemicals and other insect derived ingredients) all over the faces that they face the world with.
We live in a world where you cannot so much as turn a corner without being assaulted with a billboard depicting a scantly dressed nearly under-aged woman, with seemingly 'baby-soft' skin
And yet, we are still naive enough to suggest that:
[quote]The causes of pedophilia (and other paraphilias) are not known. There is some evidence that pedophilia may run in families, though it is unclear whether this stems from genetics or learned behavior.[/quote]
Really? The evidence is all around us. There are still schools out there that insist on female learners/students skirts being [i]x[/i] centre-mitres above the knee, as if that has a direct impact on the level of education they would receive at the school.
We objectify youth to a degree of insanity but yeah, short men are more like to be pedos. That's the deduction we make. 🤦‍♂️

Ok. Ordinarily I wouldn't respond to questions like this because if you think there's more probability of a man being a sex offender because of his height which is what your question implies, that is truly stupid thinking.

By way of contrast. How tall is the 'average female sex offender' ?

Also worth noting that Psychology Today is just a magazine.
It is not peer reviewed and is therefore no more reliable in its stories than any other magazine.

The article is utter crap. Uses scientific articles as references but no citations. Which means that they could have taken one word out of these articles and still use it as a "reference". Plus, the "findings" look more like they jump to conclusions than actually presenting and discussing facts.

well, there are plenty of short men around. that implies the possibility of being & the number of pedophiles has just increased. better lock up our kids just to be safe

I was actually reading this article 5 hours ago.. Weird

If you don't know how to science, you probably shouldn't do it.

Anyone reading that article should also take a look at this web page:

https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

@Gouzi Nope haven't studied. I am human, I think, if that counts for anything.
Apologies I didn't mean to steal your thunder. I suspect you just came across this and thought it share-worthy. Just wanted to point out how it's void of any introspection. Thanks for sharing nonetheless.

Bullshit.

Anyone else want to criticise me for sharing the article?

at least they'll have a place to begin a line-up

That's wild.