Pedophile...why?

[cally]

Why do humans have sexual attraction to children? It doesn't make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint but it seems to be more common than most of us want to believe. It seems that 1/4 to 1/3 of adult males have some sexual attraction to children. One of the problems is that the definitions of pedophila lump all crimes into the same category yet there is a difference between sex with a 15 year old who claims he or she is 20 and sexual activity with a baby or toddler. I would like to see laws that punish based on more of a continuum.

Enslaving children for prostitution either is growing or becoming more public. There is a demand for this and I'm interested in any ideas on how to decrease the acceptance of this exploitation and make it socially taboo for to engage in any sexual acts with children.

From Wikipedia:

The extent to which pedophilia occurs is not known with any certainty. Some studies have concluded that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children <6>. A study by Hall et al. of Kent State University, for example, found that 32.5% of their sample — consisting of eighty adult males — exhibited sexual arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli. Further studies indicate that even men erotically fixated on adult females are generally prone to react sexually when exposed to nude female children. <7>

In 1989 Briere and Runtz conducted a study on 193 male undergraduate students concerning pedophilia. Of the sample, 21% acknowledged sexual attraction to some small children; 9% reported sexual fantasies involving children; 5% admitted masturbating to these fantasies; and 7% conceded some probability of actually having sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment.<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Extent_of_occurrence

Then I read the FBI behavioral analysis (parts of it)

The often forgotten piece in the puzzle of the sexual victimization of children
is acquaintance molestation. This seems to be the most difficult manifestation of
the problem for society and the law to face. People seem more willing to accept a
sinister stranger from a different location or father/stepfather from a different
socioeconomic background as a child molester than a clergy member, next-door
neighbor, law-enforcement officer, pediatrician, teacher, or volunteer with direct
access to children. The acquaintance molester, by definition, is one of us. He is not
just an external threat. We cannot easily distinguish him from us or identify him
by physical traits. These kinds of molesters have always existed, but society and
the criminal-justice system have been reluctant to accept the reality of these cases.
When such an offender is discovered in our midst, a common response has been
to just move him out of our midst, perform damage control, and then try to
forget about it. Sadly one of the main reasons that the criminal-justice system and
public were forced to confront the problem of acquaintance molestation was the
preponderance of lawsuits arising from the negligence of many prominent
organizations.

One of the unfortunate outcomes of society’s preference for the
“stranger-danger” concept has a direct impact on the investigation of many
acquaintance-exploitation cases. It is what I call, “say no, yell, and tell” guilt. This
is the result of societal attitudes and prevention programs that tell potential child
victims to avoid sexual abuse by saying no, yelling, and telling. This might work
with the stranger lurking behind a tree. Children who are seduced and actively
participate in their victimization, however, often feel guilty and blame themselves
because they did not do what they were “supposed” to do. These seduced and,
therefore, compliant victims may feel a need to sometimes describe their victimization
in more socially acceptable but inaccurate ways that relieve them of this
guilt. Except for child prostitution, most sexual-exploitation-of-children cases in
the United States involve acquaintance molesters who rarely use physical force
on their victims.

Another excerpt:

The second side involves understanding the child victims as human beings
with needs, wants, and desires. Child victims cannot be held to idealistic and
superhuman standards of behavior. Their frequent cooperation in their victimization
must be viewed as an understandable human characteristic that should
have no criminal-justice significance. In theory the law recognizes their developmental
limitations and affords them with special protection. The repeated use,
however, of terms such as “rape,” “sexual violence,” “assault,” “attack,” “sexually
violent predator,” and “unwanted sexual activity,” when discussing or inquiring
about the sexual exploitation of children assumes or implies in the minds of many
that all child victims resist sexual advances by adults and are then overpowered
by coercion, threats, weapons, or physical force. Although cases with these
elements certainly exist, when adults and children have sex, lack of “consent” can
exist simply because the child is legally incapable of giving consent. Whether or
not the child resisted, said no, and was overpowered are, therefore, not necessarily
elements in determining if a crime has occurred. Understanding this is
especially problematic for the public (i.e., potential jurors) and professionals (i.e.,
physicians, therapists) who lack specialized training in criminal law and may not
rely on strict legal analysis.
Both halves of this form of sexual exploitation of children must be
recognized, understood, and addressed if these cases are going to be effectively
investigated and prosecuted. The sad reality is, however, that such behavior does
have significance in the perception of society and “real world” of the courtroom.
Society’s lack of understanding and acceptance of the reality of acquaintance
molestation and exploitation of children often results in
�� failure to disclose and even denial of victimization
�� incomplete, inaccurate, distorted disclosures when they do happen
�� lifetime of victim shame, embarrassment, and guilt
�� offenders with numerous victims over an extended period of time
�� ineffective prevention programs that also make the first four problems
even worse

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

Here's a description of why pedophiles desire children. (It's a 160 page report so this barely skims to surface of the analysis.):

Situational-type sex offenders victimizing children do not have a true sexual
preference for children. They may molest them, however, for a wide variety of
situational reasons. They are more likely to view and be aroused by adult pornography,
but might engage in sex with children in certain situations. Situational sex
offenders frequently molest readily available children they have easy access to
such as their own or those they may live with or have control over. Pubescent
teenagers are high-risk, viable sexual targets. Younger children may also be
targeted because they are weak, vulnerable, or available. Morally indiscriminate
situational offenders may select children, especially adolescents, simply because
they have the opportunity and think they can get away with it. Social misfits may
situationally select child victims out of insecurity and curiosity. Others may have
low self-esteem and use children as substitutes for preferred adults.
At the other end of the motivation continuum are the more “preferential” sex
offenders. Although they can be unintelligent and poor, they tend to be more
intelligent and more likely from higher socioeconomic groups. Their criminal
sexual behavior tends to be in the service of deviant sexual needs known as
paraphilias. This behavior is often persistent and compulsive and is primarily
fantasy-driven. Their erotic imagery creates and repeated fantasy over time then
fuels the needs. They are more likely to consider these needs rather than the risks
involved and therefore make “needy” mistakes that often seem almost stupid.
When they collect pornography and related paraphernalia, it usually focuses the
themes of their paraphilic preferences. Their fantasy-driven behavior tends to
focus not only on general victim characteristics and their entitlement to sex, but
also on their paraphilic preferences including specific victim preferences; their
relationship to the victim (i.e., teacher, rescuer, mentor); and their detailed
scenario (i.e., education, rescue, journey) (Hazelwood & Warren, 2001). Their criminal
sexual behavior is rooted in their sexual fantasies and need to turn fantasy into
reality. Their verbal skills are usually high, and they are less likely to use physical
violence to control victims. They are more likely to have a history of primarily sex
offenses. Their sex crimes usually stem from a fantasy-fueled and elaborate script
that is far more detailed and elaborate (i.e., dialogue, exact sequence, clothing)
than the “plan” of a situational-type sex offender or common criminal. They tend
to “audition” their potential victims, selecting them primarily based on their similarity
to and consistency with that script. There can be a lengthy “rehearsal” or
grooming process leading up to the victimization. They are more likely to use
fantasy “props” (i.e., fetish items, costumes, toys) and critique the activity, but
not necessarily learn from or then modify their criminal sexual behavior. Their
patterns of behavior are more likely to involve the previously discussed concept
of ritual.
As this descriptive term implies, preferential-type sex offenders have specific
sexual preferences or paraphilias. For instance those with a preference for children
could be called “pedophiles.” Those with a preference for peeping could be
called voyeurs, and those with a preference for suffering could be called sadists.
But one of the purposes of this typology is to limit the use of these diagnostic
terms for investigators and prosecutors. Preferential-type sex offenders are more
likely to view, be aroused by, and collect theme pornography. A pedophile would
be just one example or subcategory of a preferential sex offender. A preferential
sex offender whose sexual preferences do not include children, and is therefore
not a pedophile, can still sexually victimize children.

Pg 34

[leftstreet]

1. Why are you posting this? Is there a House or Sen bill/vote coming up?

I can't find anything.
:shrug:

[Nutmegger]

2. Probably because of Gary Glitter. [nt]

[cally]

4. The thread on the ex-rocker

who will be jailed in Viet Nam for pedophilia. But I've been thinking about this for awhile. There have been several threads about child traficking, young girls enslaved for prostitution, young males for sale. Then the allegations about Neil Bush. Too many children are exploited and too many seem to want to engage in this.

[Redstone]

3. Answer: Because there are a lot of sick fucks out there.

And there's a special corner of Hell reserved for every one of them.

Redstone

[Quakerfriend]

6. Yes, and we as a society have to GET OUTRAGED about

how the internet has fueled this. We need to demand international laws that reach across the globe to put these sick people away forever. I am not a fan of the death penalty but, for this crime I am OK with it. It only takes one incident for the life of the victim to be forever changed.

[Redstone]

14. Shutting down MySapce would be a start. They just busted two guys

from NY who were molesting a 14 and an 11 year old girl in CT; they found the girls by trolling MySpace.

Redstone

[pitohui]

5. well i doubt your premise

you really think 1/4 or 1/3 of adult males you meet are evil shits who want to sleep w. children, that is the world you live in?

it's a sad fact that we live in a fantasy and hysteria based society instead of a reality based society

the reality recognized by almost all societies throughout human history and prehistory is that the majority of young girls are physically adult at around age 13 or so, i myself was physically mature at age 14 and i had the same (actually more powerful) needs and hormones as a young woman of 24 or 34 for that matter, and stronger needs than many women of 44 or 54

that doesn't make the men who were attracted to me perverts nor did it make me a pervert, it made me normal and would have been recognized as perfectly normal in every society there ever was up until around 1982 or so

technically to satisfy my physical needs i had to break the law and also put someone else at risk, in those days, such actions were mostly ignored, nowadays the prison system is corporate owned and putting people in the system is a big business which you can even buy stock in, so we have to criminalize a perfectly natural and normal activity

now if huge numbers of men were actually attracted to pre-pubescent girls it would indeed be a hard thing to explain in evolutionary terms, but i simply don't believe this to be the case, the small numbers of men who want to have sex with pre-pubescent girls are clearly ill in some manner and do belong in the prison system where they can't harm anyone

but 1/4 to 1/3 of adult men are perverts who should be shut away from society?

jesus, do you not have a father, a brother, a son, an ex, any male person you care about that you wouldn't want to be subject to automatic hate and suspicion simply by virtue of his gender?

i'm glad no one was around back in the day to "protect" me from exploring my own sexuality

[cally]

12. Replies like yours just end the debate and don't address the issue

There is NOTHING in my post that implies that I think 1/3 to 1/4 of adult men are perverts and should be shut away from society. I do believe there is a part of some humans that are sexually attracted to youth and young children which is what the article said. Thre are too many websites, underground stories, advertisements with children dressed in sexually provacative clothing to dismiss this as a few perverts. It may be psychologically easier to think that but I don't think it helps address the problem. Most don't act on it or let the thoughts go further than a fleeting attraction. No, I don't think most want to have sex with young children. I see sexuality differently and more of a continuum. There is obviously something in humans that makes some want sex with children. That doesn't make it normal or Ok but it does exist.

[TheWraith]

19. You're wrong.

For one thing, her reply was perfectly appropriate, and in no way sought to close off debate.

"It seems that 1/4 to 1/3 of adult males have some sexual attraction to children."

You're going to tell me that you're not implying that people who are sexually attracted to children are perverted? Even in this post, you imply that there's a large number of people who have attractions to children, and go on to say that it's not normal or okay. First, pick one: either it's the case in a third of the male population, or else it's not normal. It can't be both.

In any event, your information is grossly wrong. Maybe if you defined a "child" as "anyone under the age of 18," you'd be right, but the kind of information and innuendo you're throwing around is simply wrong. Most of those studies you're referring to are dubious at best. There's a huge difference between pedophillia, i.e. active sexual attraction to children, and someone being attracted to a sexually mature teen. True pedophillia appears in only a small percentage of the population.

By the way, I can't help but notice that you're conspicuously ignoring all female pedophiles. A cynic would suggest that you have a misandristic agenda and are using pedophillia as a way of painting males as being perverse and unfit. Fortunately, I am not quite that cynical, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it simply slipped your mind.

[cally]

24. Oh God...I cited the studies I found

I don't care if it's 10 percent or 40 percent. I'm not about to defend a study I didn't do or analyze fully because the number is not what's important. Find a number you can agree on. How about two percent or one percent. Whatever, the importatnt part is that sexual attraction to young children exists and children are exploited. You can go on sex tours just to find available children for sex. You can find too many websites exploiting children. Some males and female are attracted to children. Why does sexual attraction exist and what can we do about it?

By the way, I hate men. I think all adult men are perverts. All sexual attraction is wrong. I find all sex abhorrent. I hate porn and I have no sense of humor. Let's see, can I add more sterotypical insults when anyone tries to discuss these topics?

[TheWraith]

59. Relax.

"Whatever, the importatnt part is that sexual attraction to young children exists and children are exploited."

Yes, I don't think anyone denies this. The idea that it's 25 to 35% of the populace was the original problem. I'm sorry if I came off harshly, but those studies being used as a base for that kind of number is problematic. What they're measuring in those studies is bio-response, usually brain activity, heart rate, and/or adrenal levels. What they don't mention is that you can get a bio-response in a similar number of average (including straight) males if you show them the picture of a nude adult male. The argument is that some people are wetwired in such a way that when they see a naked human of whatever type, it triggers certain responses, possibly to assess the other human as a mate. Hence, it can't be treated as a reliable barometer of pedophillia.

As for why pedophillia exists, there are several reasons. One is that some pedophiles, were molested themselves as children, and perpetuate the cycle as adults, a kind of twisted reenactment in the false hope of fixing what originally went wrong.

Others are, simply put, sadistic fuckers who derive pleasure from using and abusing someone who is less powerful than they are. They don't have power in their daily lives, so they extract vengence on children.

There may be other types, but those are the biggies.

"By the way, I hate men. I think all adult men are perverts. All sexual attraction is wrong. I find all sex abhorrent. I hate porn and I have no sense of humor. Let's see, can I add more sterotypical insults when anyone tries to discuss these topics?"

Shrug. I wouldn't know. I wasn't the one who accused somebody of "trying to shut down debate" when all she did was point out that sex with teenagers isn't neccessarily the same thing as pedophillia. So forgive me for poking back at you, but people in glass houses...

[Xithras]

27. It's a question of statistics and how surveys are performed.

Remember, evolution is driven by the success of traits that make us REPRODUCE more. Many people dislike the fact that human males tend to be attracted to younger women, but froma biological standpoint it makes sense...the younger the woman, the more potential children that can be borne.

The problem with many of the studies done on pedophilia is that they often do count anyone who is attracted to "children" under 16-18 as pedophiles. From a biological and evolutionary standpoint however, women are typically ready for mating by 12-13. Human society has, for the most part, decided that mating that young is a BAD idea, but biological urges developed over two million years of evolution don't simply switch off because some people decided to change the rules a few hundred years ago.

We are an intelligent species and have the ability to suppress our biological urges, but it's perfectly natural that many people would still have some level of attraction. I have no problem with some 30 year old guy thinking that my 12 year old daughter is cute, but if he ACTS on those thoughts AT ALL, he should be locked away for an extremely long time (after I get done beating him into next week). The urge to mate with reproductively ready females is innate, but it is something that has to be suppressed for the good of society.

As for those who are attracted to far younger prepubescent children, the numbers are usually far, far smaller. As in less than 1% of the population smaller. It may seem like it's more common, but that's because of our population size. We have over 300 million people in the US. If even one half of one percent of them are attracted to prepubescent kids, that works out to about 1.5 million true pedophiles in this country. It's simply a math problem.

The stuff I've read indicates that the vast majority of people who ARE attracted to prepubescent children never do molest anyone. It's a mental disorder, just like schizophrenia or bipolarism, but unlike people with those disorders pedophiles often fear getting help. They usually go untreated until someone gets hurt, and at that point it's too late.

[cally]

29. Why would someone be sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent child

I can understand attraction to a sexually mature human but not one who is not. It doesn't make biological sense. I agree that noone shoud act on that and that cultures need to enforce these taboos.

The question is, in a way, about statistics. The subject of attraction to underage humans is so taboo that it's easier to say it doesn't exist or the studies are wrong. The numbers may be wrong but I don't think it matters nor will we ever know what the actual numbers are. The important part is to know that the attraction does exist and that we need to find ways to protect exploited children and reinforce societal taboos.

[Xithras]

35. Why are people attracted to sex with animals?

There are, of course, two kinds of sexual deviants. The type who are genuinely attracted, and those who simply exploit the opportunity.

People who are genuinely attracted to children (or animals) have a mental disorder. Trying to understand how someone can act that way is like trying to explain why some people are psychotic. It's not a choice, the brain is simply screwed up. A true pedophile, who is genuinely attracted to prepubescent children, has a mental disease. They no more choose to be pedophiles than straights choose to be straight. The difference is tha one is normal, and the other is the result of a mental disorder.

More common are those who simply exploit the opportunity. They may not be sexually attracted to children, but they're not repulsed either. They want to have sex, they see a chance, and they take it. The fact that the child is a child is simply irrelevant to them. They have a mental disorder related to APD (sociopathy), in that they simply don't care. Their whole mental world revolves around THEIR needs, and the consequences and impacts on others that their actions create simply aren't relevant to them.

The terminology actually gets a bit interesting here. How SHOULD we define a pedophile? Some people see pedophiles as anyone attracted to minors below the age of majority. Others see them as people who actually TOUCH people below the age of majority. Others define it as people attracted to prepubescent children. Others limit it further to people who physically molest prepubescent children.

Who is right? Is an opportunity molester who rapes a 10 year old because he's horny and she's available a pedophile? Does the fact that he's not attracted to her factor in? What about the guy who spends an hour a day lusting after the six year old next door, but who never actually leaves his house or talks to her? How about the guy who sleeps with his kids 15 year old babysitter? And the guy who lives across the street from the high school and masturbates as he watches the 14-18 year old boys leave through his kitchen window every day? How about the 50 year old guy who marries a 17 year old girl and starts a family with her?

Where do you draw the line between "pedophile", "rapist", "pervert", and "normal"?

It's an important question to answer, because you can't determine why people are pedophiles until you figure out what exactly a "pedophile" is.

39. this makes a lot of sense

trying to sort out different types of motives would help in understanding the problem.

Bottom line is that abusing a child damages that person at the deepest level, so it is vital to protect a child from this.

There is also abnormal behavior of being asexual or frigid, but that only causes problems for the spouse or lover of that person, so obviously it is not against the law.

[Yupster]

53. Thinking of natural selection

and early humans wandering as groups of hunters and gatherers, I think it does make some sense.

First, the girls would become available as sex partners to the dominant males as soon as they were physically able. That would be a given.

Isn't that how it works with other animals?

Also, children would be considered burdens to the group as it moved from place to place. Wouldn't a sexual attractiveness to the children by the males be an advantage to keeping those children better protected, fed and alive?

I think that the males being sexually attracted to girls would be a trait that ntural selection would favor as those groups would have a lower child mortality rate which back then would have been disastrously high for even the most successful groups.

[Nikia]

83. I think you are wrong

In an example from modern times, I don't think that a mother's boyfriend or stepfather who sexually abuses his girlfriend's or wife's children is more likely to treat them well in other ways. That may be the case initially when he tries to gain their trust. Often though, children sexually abused in their own households are abused or neglected in other ways too.
Children have an evolutionary advantage if they are under the protection of their own father (Yes, I know there is abuse by fathers but it is significantly less than by step fathers and boyfriends.). Men must have realized that sex leads to pregnancy. He was more likely to protect children that he believed were his children. A mother's brother also had a genetic interest in protecting his nieces and nephews. In culutures with less paternal certainty, maternals uncles usually have a bigger role in their nices and nephews lives. The children would also be under the protection of a grandfather (if he was still living) and female relatives. Modern hunter-gatherer bands usually have many members who are related by blood or marriage and that probably would also be true in the past.

[Yupster]

84. That's a good point and

something I'd like to know about.

Did early humans organize themselves in an alpha male arrangement, or in family groupings.

It's something I don't know, but I'd certainly agree with you that if they were organized by family groupings, then the males of the family would certainly protect their girls from being early sex targets by the men outside the family. I would think this would be a constant source of conflict.

I've always been interested in anthropology and wonder how much we know about early human behavior. I mean like 1 million years ago, not 40,000 years ago.

[Yupster]

85. That's a good point and

something I'd like to know about.

Did early humans organize themselves in an alpha male arrangement, or in family groupings.

It's something I don't know, but I'd certainly agree with you that if they were organized by family groupings, then the males of the family would certainly protect their girls from being early sex targets by the men outside the family. I would think this would be a constant source of conflict.

I've always been interested in anthropology and wonder how much we know about early human behavior. I mean like 1 million years ago, not 40,000 years ago.

[formernaderite]

42. We also have to remember that in cultures all around the world

girls are still being married off at young ages, by western standards. Even western culture can look to recent history where 13 and 14 yr olds married, right here in this country. To assume that man adapts biologically as quickly to social norms as society deems appropriate would be naieve.

[SYNERCHOSIS]

46. t's a mental disorder, just like schizophrenia or bipolarism, but unlike

people with those disorders pedophiles often fear getting help."

Most places require that a person commit a sex crime before they are treated, if they try to seek treatment before commiting the offense they are usually treated for ocd, which is pretty accurate at that point but does not address the spacific concerns of the individual.

Psychology is failing to do anything to stop this problem, I remember hearing about a program at John Hopkins that reported outstanding success in treating sex offenders, yet everyone, including psychologist will tell you "they CAN'T be treated". It's pure laziness and to put it bluntly it's causing more kids to get assulted because we would rather just label these people uncurable rahter then taking the time and money and really doing something other then just creating a self fullfilling prophecy for the pedophile to live up to.

49. I never quite accepted that "they can't be helped"

story myself. If it is a disorder, why can't it be helped?

[SYNERCHOSIS]

50. It can be helped

There is aversion therapy, depo provera, even talk therapy is beneficial, it all depends on if the person wants treatment.

[LostinVA]

45. I've seen the 1/3-1/4 in several (blind) studies, too

I understand the point you're making, and I myself wonder at the attraction this has. There's a lot of child porn and "fake" child porn out there (ie legal adults posing as young teens). Certain men wanting their wives or girlfriends to shave their pubic hair completely off is a manifestation of this impulse, I think.

[cally]

51. Thanks for understanding my point

That's an interesting idea about shaving pubic hair. I would tend to agree with you on that. Just like so many of the supermodels have almost prepubescent figures except with large breasts.

[Kare]

57. I would have to disagree

on the shaving idea. Not ALL men want their wives/girlfriends
to do this so they look younger, and can you imagine a woman
who would be ok with doing it if that was the reason?
The shaving is done to make it easier to perform oral sex.

I just hate to see this stated as a stereotype. Not all things
are done for nefarious reasons.

[mongo]

61. I have to take exception to the pubic hair comment

It's more a hygiene issue -- something to do for the convience of your partner.

Having a pubic hair stuck in the back of your throat is a mood breaker - if only for a minute or two.

Men in the adult film industry shave their privates too. Less smell, less lube balls gumming up the place, and less hair getting into someone else's mouth.

[RagingInMiami]

91. Wrong

It just makes oral sex much better.

[pitohui]

55. well i was quoting the second line of your post actually

you said: It seems that 1/4 to 1/3 of adult males have some sexual attraction to children

as i don't believe this to be true, the rest of your argument seems to rest on a bad premise

this shouldn't and wouldn't shut off debate, as those who accept your premise can address or refute the rest of your argument

[NashVegas]

87. I Wouldn't Put Much Faith in Arousal Studies

Because there is going to be a certain segment of those studied who will get aroused for the sole reason that it is a taboo.

[0007]

16. A lot of what you say makes perfect sense.

[hippiechick]

62. A 14 year old with 'powerful physical needs' ?

oh my. :wow:

[Clark2008]

77. Really?

I'm 36 and wear my husband out.

I don't remember being this "needy" in that department when I was 16. In fact, I was a virgin at that age.

:shrug:

[In_The_Wind]

7. The pedophile is a sick individual who is a thread to all of us.

I speak from a professional standpoint. I was an investigator for Child Protective Services.

[neweurope]

8. I think a lot of pedophiles were abused themselves when

they were children. Violence and oppression very often make the victim resemble the perpetrator... It's a spiral of hatred and fear.

--------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[DemExpat]

25. I was going to mention this as well....

not as an excuse, but to see that there is something sick/traumatic driving these people in some/maybe most cases.

I always used to think that it was because they felt developmentally arrested somehow, and therefore have sexual urges with childish attractions. (Can't relate - also sexually - to an adult)

DemEx

[neweurope]

32. I'm glad for your answer...it's all too easy to demand they all be

killed or put behind bars for life... But we all DO know that when we judge we must always first ask why.

I do have some experience in this matter. Not as a professional but as a victim.

-------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[NashVegas]

90. Yeah

I think there's a huge, huge control factor that goes on.

Kid gets sexually abused - has no control over the situation. To have an adult relationship between equals, you've got to be willing to give up some control.

So you turn around and get sex where you can be in control.

But let's be real - not every abused kid turns around and does the same 20-30 years later. I'd love to see a study comparing the two groups and see what environmental differences there may have been that gives the group that doesn't sexually abuse children the grounding to not repeat the cycle.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. I've always thought it is some kind of twisted reaction to

being told that sexual feelings are bad. From the time they are babies, most western children are taught 'don't touch' your body is bad, etc. combine that with the bombardment of sex in advertising and tv/movies...

I've been looking for a reliable study that compares pedophilia in western cultures to native cultures, but no luck so far.

[Deep13]

10. bad wiring

First, pedophilia is sex with actual children, not teenagers. Teenagers are verboten in Western society, but that has not always been the case and is not universally true.

I think Darwinism has made humans not very picky about possible sex partners. Still, when it comes to relatives and children, the normal thing is for the brain to say "except here". Most people are revolted by the suggestion. Somehow in pedophiles that mental barrier has been eliminated. Also, all sex offenders were sexually abused as minors. (The reverse is not necessarily true.) The age of their victims corresponds to the age they were at the time of their own abuse. Somehow, that behavior becomes "normal" for the sex offender.

[Yupster]

54. I don't know what kind of evidence we have about

sexual traits of early humans.

If humans have been around for 2 million years, then 95 % of that time we were just wandering groups trying to stay alive. That's when most of the natural selection would have been working on us.

Was there an age limit for having sex for these early humans? I'd be surprised if there was. My guess is the dominant males of the group just had sex with any and every woman they wanted, and the first time for a girl in the group may have been seven or eight or as soon as she was physically able to.

[Kare]

58. with the actual life span being roughly 30

they would have had to start early or most of us
wouldn't be here

[Nikia]

65. But starting young increased the risk of maternal death

A 12 year girl might die if she would give birth. If she waited until she was 18 to give birth, she would be more likely to survive and might have 3-5 children even if she died in her thirties. The same is true today in third world countries. Even in countries with better health care, the baby and mother are more likely to die during child birth the younger she is until she is in her twenties.

[Yupster]

71. That's no doubt true, but

I just can't see a roaming band of humans worrying about how old the female is. They wouldn't know anyway.

My guess is that if she was physically able to have sex, then she would be fair game.

[Nikia]

82. Humans are different from other primates

Most female primates, including chimpanzees, have a esterus cycle instead of menstration. In esterus, a female is receptive and fertile. There is an evident physical change that occurrs such as swelling and redness. This is the only time period that the female will have sex and that the male will approach her for sex. Most primate females do not lose esterus when they age.
Human females have a menstral cycle. Menstration is a time when the woman is getting rid of her egg and uterine lining. This is not a time when a woman is most fertile and is in fact usually not fertile. The time that a woman is most fertile is not signified by any detectable physical change. Women will usually have sex at any time during their cycle. One reason suggested for the evolution of a menstral cylce and loss of esterus is a move to monagamy or at least serial monagamy as a woman would be more likely to keep a male around longer if she had sex more often with him and he did not know when she would become pregnant.
Are you suggesting that since women do not go through esterus like most primates that most early males would have sex with young girls who are not even close to fertility because there is not a detectable change? You say physically able. Do you mean that when they have observed signs of fertility such as menstration in early teens or do you mean toddlers who wouldn't be as severely injured as infants by sex?
There are physical signs of maturity and fertility aside from just menstration though that people are aware of and were probably aware of from the beginning. Before girls menstrate for the first time, they usually start growing breasts and pubic hair. If a male was set on assuring that a girl's first child was his, he might make her his monogamous mate are this stage before menstration. This is the only big evolutionary advantage I see for a male choosing to have sex with a girl who is not yet fertile. When menstration occurrs, a girl might be fertile but she is not as fertile as older women and her body is not as ready to carry and deliver a baby. Over the next few years, a women undergoes more changes (You realize that a menstrating 12 year old doesn't look like a 20 year old, don't you). Her breasts, pubic hair, and body dimensions (more likely to be hourglass figure than straight up and down) continue to change. An observatant person would note them. By her late teens or early twenties, the women will have reached her peak adult and fertility form. If a male chose to mate with a woman at this stage, she would be more fertile, more likely to have a live healthy infant, and more likely to survive delivery herself. There is also a evolutionary advantage to this also. Women who have reached menopause or nearing the end of their fertility also undergo changes and body dimensions are one of them, which is why older women tend to have more weight on their stomach than women in their twenties.
Early men and women would have learned to know the differences of these stages in life. A male might take the gamble to have a young wife who may or may not die during childbirth or he might choose an older one who had a shorter reproductive life but was more likely to survive delivery and produce surviving children. This might also explain why some men are more naturuaully attracted to girls in early puberty while others are more attracted to fully developed women. This is our biological past and inclinations. Humans are the most learning oriented animal and modern humans in many cultures have learned to value relationships between equals. Sexual relationships between underage children and adults are wrong because of the inequality and power dynamics of the situation as I have said in another post in this thread.

[Yupster]

86. I was thinking more of a dominant

male wanting to assert his authority over the group and express his dominance more than the male wanting to make sure his genes were passed on.

Like I said above I don't know how early humans organized themselves and if the alpha male grouping even applies, but that's how I was thinking.

Appreciate the replies

[BR_Parkway]

11. I'm going to get totally blasted for this - but, not to justify sex with

minors in the least bit - I do agree that there should be a sliding scale based on the actual age. There are plenty of 15yo's that can pass for 20 something.

There's also the fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, that puberty readies the body for procreation in the early to mid teens (not mentally I know). This is probably some response to much shorter lifespans - my grandmother had her first child at 14. Somewhere along the way the age of consent in many states has been raised to the current 16-18yo range - but changing the wording of the law doesn't change the physical characteristics of the body. What is illegal now was for the most part opposite 50 years ago - if they weren't married off having babies by 14-15, they were destined to be 'old maids'. The males were generally older (mid 20's) simply because they worked to build up a nest egg to start out with - easy credit and no down mortgages weren't a part of the picture.

So perhaps the large number of 'perverts' (outside of those freaks into really young children) isn't so much a reflection may in part be a natural reaction but the laws have changed to make it illegal.

[patcox2]

31. Why not mentally?

Thats the message your culture has driven so deeply into your brain that you accept it without thinking. But its not a universal belief historically and across cultures.

To me, constantly telling young people they are not ready mentally, its a huge big thing, don't "make a mistake," is all part and parcel of victorian guilt-mongering prudishness.

[dusmcj]

13. repressive social norms re: sexuality, and abusive childhood experiences.

[dusmcj]

38. BTW, not that the answer is touchy feely BS

To make it crystal clear: I am suggesting mechanism here, not excuse or any other mitigation of the seriousness of the offense. It is unfortunate if the proposal is correct, and the formative experiences of these people scarred them so significantly that they respond with child sexual abuse. But not unfortunate enough that the priority should be anywhere else but with the victim. At some point, psychological dysfunction can be serious enough so that the notion that an adult has the power of choice no longer applies, but there's a long run-up to that point, and it's a dynamic phenomenon. The fundamental choice faced by us all in fact is, given offensive behavior towards us by others, do we allow their disease to infect us and proceed to behave similarly to third parties, or do we make the effort to both assert the control of our higher brain functions over primitive responses and low-level conditioning, and thereby reclaim our own past from those who meant us harm. Pedophiles fail to do that, and given who their victims are, there isn't much to discuss.

[bloom]

15. I was reading something recently

- that there was a study that showed that porn can act to lower people's taboo or learned aversions to sex with children. Watching younger and younger (looking or actual age) girls having sex, etc. It becomes a learned response sort of like Pavlov's dogs.

That it doesn't mean that porn has that effect on everybody. But what if it's 10% ? That would be pretty many people.

[cally]

21. I think all the advertisements that show children

or young adolescents in sexually provacative clothes and poses adds to it. I think we need to make better distinctions in what is acceptable and what is not. I'm not surprised that viewing these images acts to lower people's taboo or learned aversions to sex with children.

I think we do learn what is sexually appropriate through our culture. Different cultures have different taboos. Sex with children is an almost universal taboo.

[LostinVA]

47. I read that, too -- "Pornified" talks about it

And, I am not anti=porn., To be blunt, I watch it myself on occasion. But, there are certain people who CAN be desensitized to stuff... it really si a slippery slope. The reading I did was fascinating -- and sometimes sickening.

[pitohui]

56. porn only uses women age 18 and older

sorry but i don't consider 18 to be a child

actually in practice i think we all know it's the reverse, porn, entertainment industry, and advertising have taught us to broaden our definition of what is sexually attractive and not to narrow it to only the youngest and most gorgeous

do you think 100 years ago that a skinny 40 yr old like sarah jessica parker would be considered sexually attractive? barely and only in a small circle of artists, another 100 years back and she would be considered irredeemably old, skinny, and ugly by all including herself

but we can see her as the beautiful woman she is

our eyes are different now, we see differently now

the beauty in the younger woman or young man was always visible for evolutionary reasons, we don't have to be trained to see it, we respond to it instinctively, the beauty of the middle-aged man or women we have to be trained to see, as recently as a decade ago, you would have seen very little interest in a show abt a bunch of fortysomething housewives being portrayed as sex goddesses, but we are learning to see the beauty in middle age where we could not see it before

now they've done a better job w. educating our eye to see the beauty in the older male, but definitely we are slowly expanding our ability to see the older woman as well

there was a day when the centerfold in Hustler magazine of the grandmother was shocking, now there are entire porn magazines such as Over Fifty dedicated to older women

[Nikia]

66. Some 18 year olds look 25. Some look 13.

There are ways to make young adults look younger like dressing them in school uniform outfits, putting their hair into pig tails, and having them suck on lollipops.
There are also advertisements of much younger girls scantily clad or in suggestive poses.

[mongo]

63. There has never been a proven causal link between porn and crime

and this common myth that "porn makes you want to have sex with children", is the same type of argument as the studies about rock music causing suicide or anti-social behavior, video games causing violence, etc.

Most of the studies that have been done are unrealistic and don't bear relation to what people do in the real world.

The study (can't remember the researcher - the ole memory is fuzzy) that showed that men were more prone to giving an electric shock to a (woman) facilitator after watching porn -- thus "proving" that porn caused aggression was horribly flawed. Follow-up studies showed that whether or not a shock was given was more closely tied to the facilitator's demeaner (warm and friendly vs. cold and distant) than the media the subject was forced to watch.

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. Well...

it would help if what was meant by 'children' were more clearly defined in that article. Do they mean prepubescent children? Adolescents? Legal minors? The language is a bit fuzzy.

But, as to the 'why', in the case of male sexual attraction to pubescent/adolescent females (those near or at sexual maturity) is something that's probably evolutionarily hardwired. And a few centuries of changing social mores aren't quite enough to overcome four plus million years of primate evolution. This is at least understandable; our society has evolved, and it's not 'acceptable' behaviour, but there's some biological basis for it. Sexual attraction to prepubescents, on the other hand, is something that isn't.

[cally]

20. I agree. The definition of children is

not well defined and is a problem.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. Spot on, as usual.

:thumbsup:

And to the punishment fetishists who LOOOOOOVE to see a poor 20yo man being thrown in the slammer for having sex wit a 17yo woman -- it's you who are the pervs.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Thanks...

it bothers me whenever I see someone call a 20-something arrested for having sex with a 15-year-old girl a 'pedophile'; they obviously don't know what the word means. Social conditioning can be a terrible thing, huh?

[Bridget Burke]

26. The difference in the couple's ages should count.

A 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old is not a pedophile, either. But I think he should be treated more harshly than the 20 year old.

[LostinVA]

48. Most states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws now

It's usually two or three years difference. It is now very usual to see a 20 year old incarcerated for having sex with a 17 year old, as another poster up thread mention.

[patcox2]

28. Umm, pedophilia by definition is attraction to pre-pubescent children

There is not only an "evolutionary basis" for attraction to post-pubescent but "illegal" minors, there is actually nothing strange or inherently abnormal about it. They are sexually mature females who are only off-limits because of an arbitrary law.

[dogday]

18. I am a parent of a young girl and I have zero

tolerance for these freaks... :mad:

[MadHound]

30. I think you're throwing some stats around

Without really questioning them.

First off, you are fixated on the male pedophile, yet we have seen increasing instances of female pedophilia.

Second, what you are implying with your 1/4-1/3 arousal statistic is that number represents attraction to children. It doesn't, it represents the number of arousal reactions garnered by this study. The biggest flaw I find, besides your somewhat deceptive intermixture of terms and general tone, is that apparently these studies were done with undergraduate males. If you don't know it by now, let me clue you in. Undergraduate males have a huge sex drive, and you will probably get a decent percentage of arousal reactions showing pictures of trees.

Third, you are indeed dismissing the evolutionary component. Even as recently as fifty years ago, girls were regularly getting married in their teenage years, fifteen, sixteen, etc. I don't know if it's still on the books, but the law in Arkansas at least used to be that a girl could get married without her parents permission at age fourteen, and with her parents permission at age twelve. The farther you go back, and the younger the age is. In Middle Age Europe it was the norm that girls were wed before they were fifteen.

There's a good evolutionary reason for this, because humans, and especially women, had a much shorter lifespan in those days, and nature dictated that you'd better get started breeding early, otherwise you might lose out in the great genetic lottery. Consider that your average woman in those days had an average of eight pregnacies, with half of those potentials either lost before birth or not making it to five years old. Add in a lifespan of only fifty years, and it makes perfect evolutionary sense that girls married, had sex and kids at ages that are considered illegal and immoral today. And this was the norm, even as short ago as one hundred years.

And as with other inconvient evolutionary traits like wisdom teeth, attraction to young girls hangs around and hangs around. The vast majority of humans no longer act on this, but it lurks there, just beneath the surface, waiting for somebody to act out.

And as far as the notion that it is more prevalent these days, it isn't, at least not in percentile terms. Yes, there is probably a greater number, but there is a larger population also. In percentile terms, pedophilia has remained the same.

And then there is the definition of pedophilia itself. Under the law, it is too damn broad, sweeping up both the real monsters and the young lovers(where one partner is above the age of consent by a year or two, and the other partner is below the age by a year or two) In addition, the law enforcement statistics are further skewed due to some very loose legal definitions. In mine and most other states nationwide, if I were to get drunk, stumble down an alley to take a piss, and get seen by a parent and child, I can be busted and charged as a child sex offender same as the monster down the street who raped two four year olds. Sorry, but that sort of broad legal definition is doing immense harm to people nationwide, and also doing a disservice to the real victims.

And one more thing to consider is where this whole pedophilia hysteria is going, and what sort of implications it has for the rest of us. The standard excuse for the draconian tactics we continue to apply to pedophiles and sex offenders is that they can't be cured, that they have a high, if not the highest, recidivism rate of any criminal. Patently untrue, as non-violent burglary, drug use/drug dealing, domestic violence, and assault have much higher recidivism rates. So if we are forcing sex offenders to register on this flimsy excuse of the recidivism rate, how long before we start using that same excuse for those criminals whose recidivism rate is truly high? Start forcing those dope smokers to live 1000 yards from any head shop or convience store? Make those house burglars register where they live. Force those muggers to move a half mile away from any other human being?

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone nor approve of those who do prey on children. But this ongoing and ever increasing hysteria over the matter is sweeping up a lot of innocent people, and setting legal precedents that will come back to haunt us. Before we continue on this merry path ensconced in this lovely basket, I think we need to stop and think about this rationally and sanely. Otherwise before you know it, you too will be on a list simply because you gave your buddy a joint to get him through the night.

[cally]

34. Please cite some studies on female pedophlia

I would like to also see your information on prevalence over time. Before claiming I fixated on male pedophilia, go do a search on pedophilia and see if you get studies on female pedophilia without specifically trying to find info on female pedophilia. I was not concerned about the difference between genders but rather why humans are attracted to children. While you go looking for the differences please look into rates of incest, the economic explotation of children and whom they are being sold to. Who frequents the child brothels, and who sells the children?

To be honest, I'm rather appalled at the personal tone of some of the criticisms in this thread including yours. Where am "I indeed dismissing evolutionary" rationale. I've in no way ignored the fact that humans are attracted to sexually mature mates whatever the age. The key is what a society does about it. I raised a question and cited some info I found in the hopes that others would respond with information.

[MadHound]

40. Excuse me,

But you were specifically stating male pedophelia, that 1/4-1/3 arousal remark, among others. All of your cites were male only, and while you did mention "humans" in general terms a couple of times, the overall impression that I got was that you were coming down hard on the male of the species. I just thought that I would point out that indeed, as we've seen in the media here lately, there are female pedophiles also. Yes, the majority of pedophilia is committed by males, at least that which is reported. But it is bad form to claim to explore the problems of perps of both sexes, yet only pay attention to one.

And quite frankly, if you are insulted by the tone of my critique, I'm sorry, but you perhaps need to grow a thicker skin. I didn't insult you, nor attack you, I just pointed out that you had indeed ignored our evolutionary history. The reason that I made the statement I did was because of this "It doesn't make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint but it seems to be more common than most of us want to believe." I was just pointing out that yes, it does make evolutionary sense.

And if I'm sounding a bit testy on this issue, sorry. But I find it poor form when people throw around bogus stats like 1/4-1/3, or rely on studies that were not properly done, and who condemn a whole group of people without differentiating those who were wrongly swept up in the net and those who are truly the monsters.

And quite frankly, it scares me to death that we are setting this sort of precedent in our laws and society. Today it is pedophiles and sex offenders who get the treatment. Tommorrow it could be you or I. I propose that we take a step back and think about these matters before we go all gung ho because "it's for the children".

[phylny]

60. I don't have a study, but here in New York, a woman working in a daycare

was arrested the other day on suspicion that she sexually assaulted a 4-year-old boy.

She said he "seduced" her. Lord.

[bloom]

72. This isn't letting me copy and paste...

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

but it says that of the sample of 4007 men and women who admit to molesting a child 13 years old or younger, 99% were male and 1% were females.

also - from the study - est. 27,160,752 adult females and 12,222,388 adult males are survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

Lots of other stats/discussion.

[cally]

74. Thanks for finding this study

I refused to go looking for it but I suspected one was out there.

[Swamp Rat]

33. Are there any serious studies concerning female pedophiles?

Maybe there aren't as many, but we should at least study that possibility too. As for the men who actually commit acts of pedophilia, I feel no pity for them and hope for the harshest (humane) punishment. :grr:

[cally]

36. Thank you for asking the question

I looked for info on pedophilia and not gender specific info. I would be very interested to see some studies on female pedophilia. In no way will I go looking for this info and post it when I'm supposed to defend the statistics and methodology in any study I find.

[Swamp Rat]

41. Well, you can post a disclaimer.

:shrug:

I understand your concern, though.

[MadHound]

44. So we're just supposed to accept your studies on faith?

Sorry, but I can't do that, I won't do that, not only with your studies, but with any so-called factual evidence that is presented to me. Too many people took the word of Bushco on WMDs and other such nonsensical studies, and look where we are.

One must question any study, poll, or statistic out there, it is part of being a critical thinker. Sadly though, that seems to be a lost art amongst the US population.

And I should think that if you are going to cite a study of any sort, you should be familiar enough with it to at least somewhat defend the methodology and statistics involved in the study. Sorry, but one simply can't take things as a matter of faith.

Simply throwing a premise and a study out there and calling that POV valid is not good form. That is the tactic of demagogues and devious salesmen. If your study is skewed, then your whole case is badly effected.

Sorry I seem like such a nitpick on this, but I grew up with debate and arguing law, and found out early and often that indeed these things matter.

[cally]

52. Then show me a study that disputes what I said

before personalizing the critique and inferring my personal motives. I disagree about citing studies. I don't think every study cited on this site implies that the poster personally vetted the study or statistics. If you do that, then show me your posts because I have difficulty believing it. It was others in this thread who took the study further than I intended. Find a better study on prevalence of pediphilia and then defend it. I would guess every study on this is flawed because too many lie about this taboo subject. It doesn't mean that we can't learn from the studies and ask follow up questions. That's how most social science work.

[AngryAmish]

37. My SWAG about evolutionary biology

Not for the young kids but men who want pubescent females.

Anyway men are worried about sexual fidelity of the mates while female are more worried about emotional fidelity/loss of resources. In shorthand, men do not want to raise another man's kid and women do not want their man running off. (In all of this I am using generalities and if your particular situation is different please don't flame me). This is stereotypical but it seems that in ancient times when we evolved that would be more true. I think it is hard wired into us.

So, why would a man want a barely pubescent girl? First, it ensures that if he keeps her sufficiently isolated there is no chance of him raising another man's child. So to a certain extent the urge for pubescent women may be hard wired.

That said, we are not slaves to our desires. No man should seek an underaged sex partner.

[Nikia]

67. I've read that too

If a male would take a girl as a mate who was just starting to show signs of puberty, which usually occurrs before fertility, he could be reasonably certain that when she had her first child it would be his. If he took a girl as a mate who was older and fertile for a few years ago, if she had a baby 9 months later, he could not be certain whether the baby was his for sure or not.
Presently, girls that age are very vunerable. They are still at an age when they trust adults. They may have body image problems do to their changing bodies. They are going through a change of hormones. They are going through social changes such as expecting to give up playing with toys and being a little girl and becoming a young woman. It might be hardwired for men to want them. It can be devestating for them if something actually occurrs.

[dusmcj]

43. the act is about power, not about readiness

Sorry if this seems like trotting out trite cant, but I believe without much further thought that it is correct, particularly in light of the presence of abuse as a clearly proven initiating factor in pedophilia - the transaction the abuser experienced as abusee was one in which their undegraded youthful self was besmirched by having coercive power applied to it. The abusee become abuser has a psychological Schwerpunkt revolving around that transaction, and the apparently lost undegraded self, and seeks to recapitulate that transaction in order to make contact with that lost self. In the process taking on the role of the abuser, while the target of the abuse stands in for the abuser's lost youth. The victim must of course oblige with the weakness the abuser once felt.

So that some things would appear to be required:
- the power transaction needs to be present in order for the crime to have happened
- the law clearly should define that below a statutory age of the victim, the presumption is
unchallengeable that such a power transaction was involved
- this is related to the notion of consent, so package it up as, below a certain age, the
child participant in the relationship is incapable of giving consent, and so a statutory
crime has occurred, the claims of any party to the contrary notwithstanding.
- let's please divorce sexuality from biological reproductive maturity. There's a lot more to
sexual attraction whatever form it takes than whether the proposed partner is a bearer of
the classical signs of fertility and receptiveness. Those who choose to aspire to nothing
more than domestic animal status, go off and take care of yourselves, but leave the rest
of us out of it, thank you. All of which boils down to here that "biological reproductive
maturity" is totally meaningless for this discussion, as well as legally, and in fact is
used as an excuse for abuse no different than "she said no but I knew she really wanted it".
I am not an animal, thank you, I am a higher creation, as are all the other readers of this
board, whether they want to be or not, and people who think that we are capable of nothing
more than lowing, eating, farting, fucking and sleeping and should moreover aspire to nothing
more are among the sources of our current troubles.
- very correctly someone also noted that conservatives are mis-handling issues of consent to
repress normal sexual psychological development while doing nothing about or facilitating
abusive sexuality. While this is the norm in conservative societies, that does not mean
it is acceptable - again, we can aspire to being more than simple farm animals with basic
programming. Thus above the minimum age of consent, age difference maximums should come
into play as long as one party is under 18. So that as a caller on a satellite radio
broadcast noted, 17 year olds do not have to worry about having to break off their
relationship with their 15 year old partner on the day they turn 18. This can be made
fairly "scientific" based on well-known data on developmental differences between each
year, so that for example, high school seniors taking advantage of 13-year olds becomes
legally problematic.

BTW, I am neither a trained psychologist or lawyer. I do have experience with psychologists, good, bad, amateur and otherwise, and with abusive personalities. Further, the problematic dynamics of our defective orthodox societal norms are on plain display for all to see, and have further been addressed by the hard work of people who do practice sound science - the information is there for us to acquire and synthesize into sound policy.

[Nikia]

68. I think that it is about power too

Some adult men do not want to have to deal with an equal partner. Someone younger, naive, and unexperienced would seem ideal for them.
We must really ask ourselves what consent is and when a child really has a choice. For example in the case of teacher abuse, if a child or teen is used to always doing what the teacher wants and says, how easy is it for the child to say "no". If a step father, who has diciplinary power over his wife's children, approaches his step daughter for sex she might not feel like she even has the option not to. We must remember that some children are raised not to question adults, to always believe that they are right, and that they have no rights. Sadly some adults believe that they are less than equal human beings including some so called "sluts". Children though are recognized as being universally vunerable to this though.
Early marriage of girls was done during a time where a man had power in the household. It worked better if he naturually had power by his older age, not just gender. No one pretended that the marriage of a 13 year old to a 30 year old was a marriage of equals. We should not pretend that a "relationship" between a 13 year old and 30 year old is one of equals either.

[dusmcj]

73. you're of course touching on core issues raised by feminism

I would humbly phrase them as, what should be a personal relationship between autonomous peers is instead degenerated into a social transaction framed by group behavioral structures and norms enforced by social coercion, all of which serve the subsistence survival needs of the group before the best interests of the two parties to the relationship. To optimize the perpetuation not of the species but specifically of the tribe, the woman is reduced to a babymaking machine who is kept monogamous by dualities of pure/slut etc. I have encountered those who claim that biology dominates, and I just read about brain chemistry in human females which drives pair bonding, but in general I place little worth on the determinists' viewpoint, no different than on their claims that homosexuality is genetic. One thing I would do is weave your points into my claim that criminally aberrant sexuality is just another effect of social sexual norm frameworks which are so detrimental to the health of the individual in service of putative group advantage that individuals, maybe predisposed, although by environment at least as strongly as biology, form pathological responses to the deficient condition which is instinctively understood to be such.

[bloom]

78. You make some good points

Also - If there are more women teachers abusing students today ( instead of it being something that is just getting more news coverage) - it makes me wonder about what is going on. What changes in society causes that? Like is it that there is more open abuse of power generally? It seems like something worth studying.

I can't really believe that anyone who thinks - a "relationship" between a 13 or 14 or 15 year old & a 30 or 40 year old is Ok - is concerned about equality.

It seems to me that there is less emphasis in general these days for people to have healthy sexual relationships between equal partners.

[Joanne98]

64. I think the NBC and Perverted Justice shows prove..

that it crosses all socio-enconomic lines. They even got a guy who worked for Homeland Security.

[New Government]

69. Pedophiles vs Child Molesters

I remember learning, during university studies, that there is a big difference between pedophiles and child molesters. The media - nobody, really - ever makes that distinction. Pedophiles have a sexual attraction toward children, but the vast majority never act on those desires. A child molester is usually, but not always, a pedophile. With the way the news of child molestation is reported, I know that's hard to follow and make sense. But it's real. Pedophilia does not mean molestation. No more than an unmarried man who is attracted to big chested women between the ages of 25 and 30 will molest or rape them. Attraction does not necessarily mean action. Pedophilia is not a crime - it is the way somebody is. Child Molestation is a crime. The two are not the same. I remember in one class we had a sex crimes investigator come in and explain the difference. Most of us were surprised, given the way media always uses "pedophile" in place of "child molester," that there is, in fact, a difference. It's all very strange to me, but I think we should begin to see it as it really is and accept that some are (and always have been) attracted to children. It may be disgusting to many of us, but that's the truth.

[cally]

75. That leads to the question of what made them not act

on their desires. Why some act on their urges and others don't. Thanks for the interesting information and welcome to DU.

[bloom]

76. Re: that

In the Conclusion of the study I posted above - from interviewing 16,000 people - the following conclusions are made:

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf


"those who meet the medical criteria for pedophilia molest 88% of the victims and commit 95% of child molestations. It is clear that, in order to reduce the number of children molested, we must identify the pedophile and implement treatment for the pedophile as rapidly as possible.

...Those molesters who themselves were molested frequently as children, those who frequently fantasize about sexual interaction with children, and those who have several paraphillias: those who molest children both boys and girls, those who molest children in several age ranges and those who molest children both inside and outside the home or who are also voyeurs and/or exhibitionists are especially problematic."

It sounds like you might disagree with their conclusions - but that is what they are. It sounds to me like their take is that pedophilia is a disorder which gets worse (and more difficult to treat) when untreated.

[kath]

70. It's interesting (to me anyway) to think about the compulsion most

American women have to remove all (or most) body hair. By doing so, they give themselves the appearance of a PREPUBESCENT GIRL. Let's face it, sexually mature women have hair (GASP!) - on their legs, in their armpits, and in the pubic area. Why do women feel that, in order to be attractive to men, they have to remove hair from two or more of these places?? Are we saying (or admitting) that prepubescent girls are what men really want?

[Poll_Blind]

79. I have pondered this on many occasions when the panties come off...

...and there's nothing there but bare. My current girlfriend, a beautiful latina, loves shaving. I do not like my women to shave- I encourage them to be "as they come, out of the box". I have real issues with women who shave because I feel most of it is based on previous partners' requests. I've been using the internet for 20 years and, yes, on occasion, have gone to pornographic sites to view pornographic material.

The sheer number of advertizements for Young Hot Teens (TM) shows me that the desire to see and fantasize about underage (less than 18 year old) women/girls is writing lots of people paychecks. You would not see that number of ads if it were otherwise.

We're talking about pornography here- pornographers go where the money is.

Anyway, she insisted on shaving and because we had first started going out I said fine. We've been going out a year now and I've talked to her about it several times and....drumroll...she insists its for her own comfort. She'd been doing it ever since she was 12-13. I'm a little puzzled how one's pubic hair can bother a person, but that's what she says.

However, I feel that the majority of women who do are doing it to please their men who request it. What their motivations are, ultimately, I guess is known only to them. But privately, shaving the pubic region completely bare seems like a non-sequitur to me.

Then again, my ideal woman would be compltely "natural", no shaving anything, not wearing any perfume, no bra unless unless they pass the pencil test. That's how god makes women. And to me, that seems like the best way to enjoy them!

My disclaimer: I had no idea when I logged on to DU tonight that I would be discussing the pubic hair-shaving habits of my girlfriend. Please do not tell her or I may never get a chance to confirm her status again! ;-)

PB

[kath]

81. The "comfort" thing seems really strange to me - back in the days when

they used to shave the pubic hair of women in labor before they gave birth, I think that women would complain that the itching when the hair was growing back in was just *terrible*.

I hate it that as a woman in the U.S. I am expected to shave my legs and pits (and I wouldn't dream of shaving or waxing my pubes). I leave 'em "au naturel" in the winter, but usually give in and shave in the summer when wearing shorts or sleeveless tops - my teenage daughters would die of embarrassment if their friends saw how hairy I am after a long fall and winter. :-) Maybe when the girls are grown and out of the house I will stay natural all year round. I also don't wear makeup - it bugs the crap out of me that women in this culture are pretty much expected to alter the appearance of just about *every* part of their body - UGH! But guys look okay the way they are - all a guy does is shower, put on deodorant, run a comb through his hair and perhaps shave then he's ready to head out the door.

[FreedomAngel82]

80. Maybe it's a brain thing?

:shrug:

[NashVegas]

88. Boundaries. Or a Lack of Them.

It's more a matter of boundaries. A sociopath is more likely to inappropriately cross boundaries. A true pedophile - one who isn't just sexually attracted to but has an actual affection for a child - is going to see those boundaries as not applying to them. After all, they love the kid and in their mind wouldn't do anything truly harmful. Then you have the real freaks - the rapists and others who will forcibly do what they will.

I was fortunate enough (yeah I know that sounds weird) not to have been _physically_ harmed by the dirty old men in my childhood. Nonetheless it was a major headtrip. I have few doubts that they both had an affection for me and saw themselves as not doing anything harmful. I'd like to believe that if they were around today and knew the effects their actions had on my life, they'd be remorseful. I've forgiven them.

I don't believe pedophilia is ever going to go away. If we would place more emphasis on helping its victims and their families understand the nature of the crime and cope with the fallout (pre-maturely sexualized children or teens who want nothing to do with sex and relationships) in a healthy manner that doesn't add to the guilt the kid's already going to have, that would go further in reducing future pedophilia than all the Meghan's Laws in the world.

[Fleshdancer]

89. I'm curious as to when the feelings/thoughts begin

When the pedophile is sexually developing, do the fantasies/desires for children start at the beginning of sexual development when they hit puberty? Or is it a long, gradual process that may not manifest until they're in their 20's or later? It's just all so bizarre. I know one theory is that it is linked to possible abuse in their past, but if this is the case, shouldn't there be far more female pedophiles? I haven't seen many studies on it, but the few I have seen say women account for just 1-5% of all known molestation cases. Am I wrong for assuming that more girls are molested than boys on average? Are abused boys really at a bigger risk of becoming pedophiles later in life? There must be a study of that somewhere.

I guess it could be a simple case of "bad wiring" but this theory seems too simplistic. The act of molestation is too calculating and many molesters lead a life of respect and prestige among their family members, co-workers, etc (double life). Oprah interviewed pedophiles a few times and what struck me was how many of them had elaborate, long-term plans in order to commit the acts of abuse. They would befriend and date a single mother for the purpose of molesting her child. They would wait months or longer gaining the trust of both the mother and child(ren) and they always had an excuse to counter whatever the child might say to his/her mother. They knew it was wrong but they did it anyway but it wasn't impulsive. Some would back off for a while when the mom got too suspicious.

What mental disorders exist that would allow a person to act this methodical without treatment? Don't most mental disorders begin to spiral out of control when not treated or is that just for the most extreme cases? I just don't see this as the case for the pedophiles in the Oprah interviews. Granted, I can't assume all pedophiles are exactly that way, but it's the only glimpse I've seen into that world.