I am really heartened by the mostly sympathetic responses here. I think the comparison that ought to be drawn is not to homosexuality but to people with rape fantasies, who are obligated in a similar way to find safe and legal outlets for their desires. I think the best way to deal with being a potential pedophile (speaking from experience, here) is to do what I've heard Dan suggest in other forums - unpack the fetish, find the element of it that turns your crank, and shift your attention to other fetishes which involve the same element. There are ways to act out the power imbalance, the loss of innocence, the violence, or even the attraction to underdeveloped physiques ("act" being the key word) that don't involve children. Kinda like methadone, maybe?

One thing I do know is that hashing all of that out is a lot easier if you can be open about it. So a society where "kill it with fire" isn't the first response to someone admitting to a sexual interest in children would, I think, rebound to the better for all of us..

I wish I had gotten here yesterday. As it is I don't really feel like reading a hundred comments. Anyway I thought I should add my two cents, being a "theoretical" pedophile myself.

He asks what should he do. The first thing I would suggest is to tell someone who he is close to, who he is pretty sure won't react badly. I did this and though it was the scariest thing I ever did, it was probably the most rewarding as well, because having such a big secret was eating me up inside. Also it's better to tell people yourself than to have them find out. I did something stupid (not molesting or anything) that blew my cover, so to speak, and lost a lot of friends. Even though none of them actually believed that I had ever done anything with a child. (Though unlike KIW I wasn't in the habit of babysitting.) But the person who I had come out to has remained friends with me.

I don't think he should get chemically castrated just because Dan says it's the best option. If he really wants to do so then fine. But, it's actually REALLY EASY to not molest/abuse children. And it gets even easier the older you get. Not that I ever was in any danger of abusing a kid. But when I was 20 I would at least look at attractive children in public places, and now at 30, I don't anymore.

As for babysitting I think he should probably keep doing it. If like Dan says it eventually comes out that he is a pedophile, the worst that can happen is you maybe get beat up by the parents. But if you never actually did anything, you can't really get into legal trouble. And you would probably lose those people as friends regardless of whether or not you stopped babysitting their kids. However it's a pretty tough call. I guess I would say if babysitting is like one of the few times you actually feel happiness then keep doing it. But if not then you might want to follow Dan's advice and stop. Okay I'm going to read the comments now.

Ugh. I don't like the last paragraph of my comment. Basically what I mean to say is (speaking to KIW), if babysitting means a lot to you, and you know you will never abuse your power (and yes it IS possible to know that) then don't stop. Dr. Cantor's advice is good for the general population, but you know you won't hurt those kids. Some potential babysitters might not be so sure, and they are the ones who Dr. Cantor's advice is really for.

@96, A pedophile: I don't want to get into 'pearl-clutching' here, because I really appreciate the openness of this discussion, from (almost) all sides. I would like to challenge this, though:
"There is no reason that emotional harm would result from a consensual relationship without negative societal reactions to it."

I think the emotional harm is much more complex and deeply rooted than that. Children are raised collectively in societies. They mature in some relationship to what they are exposed to in their families, their schools, their peer groups and so on. Erotic relationships, no matter how lovingly & benevolently motivated, are as emotionally and physiologically sophisticated and challenging an experience as contemporary society can throw at you. Collectively we just don't raise kids to be ready to deal with that (in our world they have too much other stuff to figure out first) - at least not on an equal footing with those who have a lot more social and emotional power and experience than they do.

I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that, because you mean well by the kids you're attracted to, they couldn't be hurt by you - that only society would do the damage. I've meant well by my (same age, slightly younger, much older...) sexual partners, felt like my love was pure & innocent & all that, and I've sure as shit hurt plenty of them. If that emotional hurt is suffered when the brain is still laying down its base mechanisms for interpreting and negotiating the world and its inhabitants, a whole can of fuckup is very likely opened.

So okay, according to your avowals, this point is hypothetical. I'd rather the full responsibility for your (genuinely commendably responsible) decisions didn't rest with silly old society, though.

As a recovering Catholic who stumbled upon some BDSM info on the internet in college and had an 'awakening', if you will... fairly good summary, Dan, but you forgot the good ol' Catholic Guilt coming into play. My theory is that I'm only freely able to really completely enjoy myself when I'm being completely dominated (physically or mentally) and at that point it isn't my conscious mind enjoying this - it's out of my control and all - but just my body's reaction and I can't help that. Just a theory, but in any case, I found what makes me happy and a GGG partner so it doesn't really matter.

Dan -- great response but you need to amp up your warning to protect those kids -- based on my experience treating sex offenders.

Better than the canary analogy -- Aesop's fable of The Scorpion and the Frog:
http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cg…

No babysitting for KIW, no foster parenting, no adoption. Get a vasectomy ASAP, even if you have no adult attraction, just in case.

How do you spell DENIAL? KIW babysitting, and several comments above, like the one who thinks that pedophilia is harmless because it is partly a "socially constructed taboo". Some socially constructed taboos (like against murder) are GOOD.

(1) All the sex offenders I've treated have engaged in similar denial, especially about things like babysitting -- saying it is OK as long as it stays at babysitting. Which it didn't.

(2) The cognitive behavioral treatments that have been researched for sex offenders can reasonably be applied for pedophiles who haven't acted.

Two major components are overcoming denial, and not putting yourself in situations where you even have the possibility of acting on those impulses. See #1 -- no babysitting!!! No having kids!

Also --

(3) Be wise about selecting an MD for chemical suppression of sex drive and a psychotherapist for prevention treatment. We are required in most states to report SUSPECTED child abuse.

If you have never acted out, a doc/therapist may still suspect abuse, and it's child protective services and the police who follow up on the reported suspicion. There are documented cases of innocent people going to jail -- the system usually protects children, but it is not always perfect. Professionals vary in their judgment of suspicion.

Going to a defense attorney who works with offenders is a good but not guaranteed way of finding a referral for a doc & therapist who know how to treat pedophiles AND who might lean on the side of not suspecting you're actually acting on your impulses. This should not stop you from getting help but you should be prudent. Not all therapists who treat pedophiles will trust you, nor should they -- I'd be highly suspicious of a "good" pedophile who insists on babysitting.

@109

Yes, I did keep my discussion on this particular point short, because I didn't want the post to be too long. All this is true, in the society that we have today. It will be true for a long time to come as well. There is a lot that would have to change before such a relationship could exist, and that is why I don't think it is appropriate for such a relationship to exist today. My point is though that this doesn't and shouldn't be the case. I do think that our society could do much better at empowering kids to make their own decisions (within reason, obviously) in all areas of life, and that moreover that this would be more consistent with the ideals of freedom and equality for all. With regards to these hypothetical erotic relationships in particular, I think that they should always be completely out in the open and with the kids understanding that they have every right to refuse to do something they don't want to, and that they always have someone else to discuss their feelings with. I should also mention that I don't think relationships where an adult is in a definite position of power over a child (like a parent) should ever be allowed.

I didn't mean to imply that I am perfect. No one is. People can and do hurt others emotionally. If it is intentional, that is someone uses emotional black mail or manipulation or anything else, then it is clearly a crime and should be punished, often severely. Unintentional harm is harder to predict, and it really isn't restricted to erotic relationships - it can and will occur in any type of relationship someone could be involved in. If we could completely protect kids from emotional harm in all instances without preventing them from being able to have independence, then I would support it wholeheartedly. But I don't think this is possible, so I argue that kids should be empowered to make their own decisions and to have the tools to handle emotional troubles when they do come. To minimize any emotional harm that does occur, I think that kids (and really all people) should have a loving support system where they can be completely honest and open about their feelings without any fear of retribution or angry reactions.

The theoretical pedophile should consider finding a nice dwarf lady. Get her to shave and pretend. Just make sure not to tell her your secrets otherwise she my kill you in your sleep.
Also consider going to confession at a Catholic Church. Many of the priests understand your urges

@13 - Not psychoanalysis, psychotherapy. Psychoanalysis is outdated in theory and practice, and research has shown that people who undergo psychoanalysis are just as likely to get WORSE than better. Psychotherapy does not automatically mean a quick fix - that's cognitive behavioral therapy you're thinking of, which is big right now because insurance companies want therapy to get over with quickly. There are many, many other psychological theories that many psychotherapists employ. Psychoanalysis is going extinct, and for good reason. ESPECIALLY for a person with sexual issues, psychoanalysis is just about the worst thing as it's approach to sexuality is based on Freud's ideas, which have been considered inaccurate since the 1950's (Ladies, do you feel incomplete because you don't have a penis? Gay men, are you only that way because your mother was domineering and your father was absent, causing you to model yourself after a woman rather than a proper man?) But since Freud's like a god to the psychoanalysts, his shit keeps being used when it ought to have been thrown out half a century ago.

Yes, KIW should seek LONG TERM psychotherapy, but not psychoanalysis. He should keep in mind that all therapists are bound by confidentiality laws. Child abuse is one of the few things that a therapist is required by law to report to the authorities, but ONLY IF it's actually, currently happening, or if you say you're actually going to do it. You can go to a therapist and tell them you abused a child 10 years ago, and there's nothing they can legally report because it's over and done. You can go to a therapist and tell them you feel desires for children but have never acted on them, and they have NOTHING to report. If you tell them you are molesting a child, or have decided that you're going to do it, they have to report it.

What this means is that as long as KIW is moral, isn't acting and doesn't want to act, he should be perfectly safe going to a therapist and working with that therapist on ways to cope with his situation. The main concern will be finding a therapist that he feels comfortable disclosing this to, and who is willing to work with him in a nonjudgmental fashion (which all therapists are SUPPOSED to hold to, but which is not necessarily the reality). He would be under no legal danger however, or any danger of being outed to other people in his life (a therapist CANNOT do that except in the above circumstances, and if they did their license would be revoked and it would be the therapist potentially facing jail time, now KIW). The worst that would happen is the shrink would tell him they're not willing to work with him, and give him a referral to someone who is. There are many therapists who are willing to work with sex offenders, so I don't think it would be that hard to find one willing to work with someone who has not yet offended and plans to never do so. I would work with KIW with no judgements.

Seriously? No one else found "natural attraction to breedable adolescents" extraordinarily Warren-Jeffs-like in its creepiness? Breedable???

Dear Pedophile,

Brace yourself, because I'm going to get a wee bit hostile here. First, a few disclaimers: I appreciate your willingness to engage openly in this discussion; I very much appreciate your self-imposed celibacy, and I am aware that it must be a tremendous sacrifice; I am sorry that your sexuality leaves you stigmatized; I am not advocating moral vigilantism or moral panic. Capisce?

But here's the rub. Your argument for the innate harmlessness of sexual relationships between adults and children reads like something straight out of the diary of Humbert-motherfucking-Humbert, and all that self-serving rationalization leaves me a little queasy and a lot enraged (not to mention skeptical of your commitment to celibacy).

>>>Honest studies of pedophiles shows no significant difference from the 'normal' population save for a higher level of introversion - that is, pedophilia simply does not meet the criteria for a mental illness.<<<

And what, pray tell, constitutes an "honest study of pedophiles"? Were I a cynical woman, I might suspect that you gauged honesty not by any methodological criteria, but rather by whether or not a certain study says what you wish to hear. I assume that the "honest study" to which you refer is the 1983 study by Wilson and Cox. But what about more recent studies incorporating phallometric diagnoses -- for instance, "IQ, Handedness, and Pedophilia in Adult Male Patients Stratified by Referral Source" by Blanchard et al?

Granted, it's difficult to gather a representative sample of pedophiles, as most researchers acknowledge up front. Because pedophiles by and large do not admit their pedophilia publicly, criminal offenders are overrepresented (although no one knows quite how overrepresented) in the population studied. But there is a real body of evidence suggesting that on average, pedophiles -- *even pedophiles who are not known sexual offenders* -- differ neurologically and psychologically from the general population.

Obviously, correlation != causation; some of this difference may result from membership in a highly stigmatized group, and not pedophilia per se. Moreover, neurological difference != mental illness; for instance, gay men and lesbians tend to show certain neurological differences from heterosexuals, but this doesn't mean that homosexuality is a mental illness. However, for me at least, many of the specific differences associated with pedophilia -- lower IQ, higher rate of sociopathic tendencies, higher rate of traumatic cerebral injury in childhood, higher rate of cognitive distortion -- raise some red flags.

I am aware that not all studies agree with these findings, and that the issue remains highly contested, but your claim that "honest studies" find pedophiles to be no different from the general population (and the attendant implication that any study that does find a difference is a *dishonest* study) is disingenuous at best.

>>>I don't know if I can explain it too well to non-pedophiles, but the sexual desires I have with little girls are more "childish" in nature. Basically what I desire is similar to what the typical kid desires, which is quite different than what "normal" adults desire.<<<

With all due respect, what the fuck would you know about what "the typical little kid desires"? You only know about what *you* desired when you were a kid, and even those memories have long since been selectively narrativized, interpreted, and generally reshaped to fit your adult identity.

>>>It is simply unbearable to think that a little girl I loved could be hurt because of what society would think. So it is best to completely avoid that situation entirely.<<<

Any little girl that you "loved" would be hurt by WHAT YOU DID TO HER, you stupid fucking dipshit. (And oh, look, there's that rage I mentioned!)

>>>It is far better for the kids themselves to be empowered to make independent and good decisions for themselves (within reason for very young children).<<<

O RLY. So, should we let prepubescent children decide whether or not to attend school? Let them join the army? Let them get full-time jobs? Let them drive? Let them drink, smoke, or do drugs? Let them stay out all night without telling their parents where they'll be? Let them travel alone in foreign countries? Let them enter into binding legal contracts? Should we put them in charge of their own medical and dental care? Should we put them in charge of any stocks or money they happen to have inherited?

It seems to me that the only defensible answer to most or all of these questions is "no." I don't know whether you agree with me on this or not, but then, I bet you don't really give a shit about any of these questions either way, because you're not interested in "empowering" children - you're interested in EXPLOITING them.

>>>I should also mention that I don't think relationships where an adult is in a definite position of power over a child (like a parent) should ever be allowed.<<<

Um, in case you haven't noticed (and you clearly haven't), pretty much any given adult is in a definite position of power over any given child.

In conclusion, your cognitive distortion depresses and disgusts me. I know I've dragged down the tone of this discussion, and I know that you don't necessarily deserve all the vitriol I've directed at you -- but this is how I feel, and I don't think my feelings are totally invalid.

@116:
Most pedophiles were never abused. I certainly never was - I was born this way. Nor do genuine abuse victims go on to become abusers. That sentiment is very detrimental to those who are actually abused, for they then are assumed to be the next abuser. Not a good thing at all. Nothing good comes from it.

@111:
A lot of what you assume about pedophiles are myths. Please see www.b4uact.org/facts.htm for an overview of some factual information about pedophilia (supported by relevant studies). This organization is attempting to provide accurate information about pedophilia (and hebephilia) and to end the stigma and hatred that us pedophiles (and hebephiles) face for being who we were born as.

"How do you spell DENIAL? KIW babysitting, and several comments above, like the one who thinks that pedophilia is harmless because it is partly a "socially constructed taboo". Some socially constructed taboos (like against murder) are GOOD."

About the taboo: It has only come up within today's society. Age of consent laws for instance were enacted in part because the older prostitutes (for the record, I personally don't like prostitution) didn't want to compete with the younger ones (although a movement towards a Puritan value system was more influential in this). Go ahead and look this up if you don't believe me. Now, I do not think adult-child relationships should ever happen today (nor will they ever be acceptable in my lifetime), because I think that the results will generally always be negative for a variety of reasons - but this is not because pleasure or love is inherently wrong.

"(1) All the sex offenders I've treated have engaged in similar denial, especially about things like babysitting -- saying it is OK as long as it stays at babysitting. Which it didn't."

And most child sex offenders aren't even pedophiles, but crappy parents who abuse their kids due to stress. There are no excuses when someone actually hurts a child, and intends to do so. But my point is that a consensual erotic relationship in a better society (which won't be seen for a long time) would generally not be harmful. You'll dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't agree with what you want to be true, but please see the Rind study. It was Congressionally condemned because there were no sound mathematical reasons to reject Rind's conclusion that sexual activity viewed as consensual by a child was not inherently harmful.

And sorry to disappoint you, but I know well enough to refuse sexplay if a little girl I knew ever tried to initiate it (and certainly never think of bringing up sex myself), as do most pedophiles. I would not want harm to come to her, as it would inevitably happen in this society. I would never do anything if I knew that the action itself could be inherently harmful (which has not actually been shown to be the case with sexual activity with kids outside of penetrative sex acts which I don't even like the thought of anyways).

"(2) The cognitive behavioral treatments that have been researched for sex offenders can reasonably be applied for pedophiles who haven't acted."

Your presuming an intention to harm a child, which just isn't there, ever. I could never harm a child in any way, and if I know that something I might do could end up indirectly hurting a child, I would never do it. And that says nothing about actually intending to hurt a child. Most pedophiles could never dream of such a thing as horrid as deliberately hurting a child. I cannot think of something more revolting.

You think I'm nothing more than a monster that wants to hurt kids and will inevitably do so. You are wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pedophilia is nothing about power or anything of the sort. That's silly. I fundamentally see kids as equal human beings who deserve the same respect and consideration anyone else would get. I am attracted to little girls on every level, and really do want to make a positive difference in the lives of the girls I might come to know. I do not see consensual sexplay as inherently wrong, but won't EVER engage in it because it would end up hurting her when others found out, or even if no one found out, being told that such experiences are always bad no matter what undoubtedly would be harmful for her when she gets older. So sexual celibacy will be my path in life. It has to be. That doesn't mean I need to remove myself from ever being friends with a child, or being a parent (which due to the power a parent legitimately has over their child, should not become sexual in any society), or any other nonsexual relationship with a child. By definition, such relationships are nonsexual to begin with. I don't get into them expecting or wanting sexplay.

@62 I disagree that anyone he told would run away. He would owe it to whomever he was with to be honest - what if they decided to have children? That would be a decision meriting much more consideration than I think it might otherwise. And while there are a great many people who *would* run, there are certainly a number of others - from people who had fantasies about older men when they were young, to those who simply like age-play - who would not.

I do think ageplay is a safe way to deal with this and one that ought to be considered; I know a number of folks in my local BDSM community who participate, and some of em might well be pedophiles. I don't know, and I don't care - in that context, it's just another kink.

But that would be for KIW to determine whether he felt it would be reckless or helpful - not us.

@118:
"And what, pray tell, constitutes an "honest study of pedophiles"?"

By that I mean those which are statistically sound, not based on criminal or medical populations. Such studies are rarer, but they do exist. Please see www.b4uact.org/facts.htm for references to some of them.

The studies you mentioned look at criminal populations. Would you judge all heterosexual men on the actions of heterosexual rapists? No, so why is it OK to judge all pedophiles on the actions of child rapists (many of whom aren't even pedophiles, which is shown by several studies as well)? Finally, the results of those particular studies parallel results of other criminals being compared to the non-criminal population.

"With all due respect, what the fuck would you know about what "the typical little kid desires"? You only know about what *you* desired when you were a kid, and even those memories have long since been selectively narrativized, interpreted, and generally reshaped to fit your adult identity."

Like I said, I would have a difficult time trying to explain it well. I know that not all kids would desire sexual activity with an adult (and I did not when I was younger), though some will. But what I mean is that what I desire isn't that far off from what a kid might desire to do, if sexual activity with an older person was a possibility known to them. And it certainly would not go beyond whatever my hypothetical partner was comfortable with.

"Any little girl that you "loved" would be hurt by WHAT YOU DID TO HER, you stupid fucking dipshit. (And oh, look, there's that rage I mentioned!)"

I don't see anything inherently wrong with love or pleasure. And I do mean that I can fall in love with a child. That may seem strange to you since you don't feel this way, but this is the honest truth. But yes, in today's society a sexual relationship can never happen because of how people would react, and even if no one found out, being told that it was a hideous thing would in all likelihood be harmful as she grew up. I don't want any harm to ever come to a child, so celibacy is a complete necessity.

"O RLY. So, should we let prepubescent children decide whether or not to attend school? Let them join the army? Let them get full-time jobs? Let them drive? Let them drink, smoke, or do drugs? Let them stay out all night without telling their parents where they'll be? Let them travel alone in foreign countries? Let them enter into binding legal contracts? Should we put them in charge of their own medical and dental care? Should we put them in charge of any stocks or money they happen to have inherited?"

I think that all these things should be based on one's individual ability to do so, not something like age. While something like driving should be open to all people, obviously only those who are physically able to control a car, and in a responsible fashion, will be given driver's license, which essentially would exclude very young drivers. With school, I think there a few basic concepts that should be taught to all (reading, writing, arithmetic), but otherwise kids should be free to pursue their own academic interests. You might want to read up on the Sudbury schools, which are run in a democratic manner where kids are free to choose what they study, are not separated by age, and also democratically decide on the rules for the school community. This type of educational system is very successful, and students as young as six demonstrate a clear ability to make competent decisions with their votes with some guidance. Of course with all these things, it should be within reason and sensitive to the child's own ability to be independent.

"It seems to me that the only defensible answer to most or all of these questions is "no." I don't know whether you agree with me on this or not, but then, I bet you don't really give a shit about any of these questions either way, because you're not interested in "empowering" children - you're interested in EXPLOITING them."

I really do care about them. Exploiting kids for any reason is unthinkable to me. I would NEVER to that, ever. I don't believe in ever hurting kids for any reason, nor would I do something if I thought that it could end up hurting them indirectly somehow. I know most people don't ever care to think that a "monster" like me could ever care about kids, but I do. I really do.

"Um, in case you haven't noticed (and you clearly haven't), pretty much any given adult is in a definite position of power over any given child."

This is true in this society, because kids are taught from birth that adults are always authority figures and always right. But I do not believe this to be desirable or right.

"In conclusion, your cognitive distortion depresses and disgusts me."

With all due respect, anything I say on this issue that goes against "conventional wisdom" is a "cognitive distortion."

RE: KIW Pedophiles are the most hated people in America. Near where I live, they are denied basic constitutional rights, such as the right to be free after serving ones sentence. Instead, people are incarcerated without charge as a preventative measure.

I will make a suggestion that Dan Savage never would - you should check out some of the sex addiction programs (Sexaholics Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous, Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous, etc). These are targeted to people who want to stop behaviors that they are powerless to control. For example, people who have bathroom sex are normally not doing so because it is something they want to do ['when I grow up I want to suck off strangers in a disgusting setting'] but because they are powerless to stop with their own willpower. I would recommend extreme caution in who you share with in such a setting, however. People who are in 12-step programs have often suffered abuse as children, and you don't need to be the target of someone who wants to work out their rage. Something to keep in mind also is YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG. No children were harmed in the making of your life.

I can say that many people have had miraculous recoveries in 12-step programs. You don't know what you will get. For instance, some alcoholics report that despite going to meetings frequently, they still want to have a drink every day and they have to fight the urge. Others report that the desire is lifted.

Take what you like from this post and leave the rest.

An Anthropological View of Pedophilia:

Catholic priests forcing or seducing altar boys to have sex with them, was in the CONTEXT of the Catholic Church telling all of society that sexuality, especially same-sex sexuality, was WRONG. It put those unfortunate children into a terrible moral bind, for the rest of their lives; it was WRONG; and yet, they had done it! {Maybe unwillingly, maybe not-unwillingly. Made no difference, it was WRONG! and they SHOULD suffer, it WAS their fault.}
The same thing is true of those Church-run schools that took in orphans or Native Peoples in various countries. First, they told society that sex {except between married people for purposes of procreation} was WRONG! and then, the personnel running those schools, while beating and disciplining their ideas of "morality" into the children, they also raped and sexually abused them. So, again, these orphans and kidnapped children from Native families, were put in a terrible moral bind; they had done a WRONG thing, maybe they should have died rather than "give in" to the priest or teacher!
And the priests and teachers always made sure to tell the child it was a "Spawn of Satan" for seducing by its very presence, the priest or teacher, who by definition could do no wrong......

There have been, and there are, societies where under certain social conditions, adult-child relationships are approved of and valued. Ours for a number of reasons, is NOT one of them; and is not likely to become one of them. As others here have pointed out, in Classical Greek culture adult men honored boys by becoming their lovers; the family of the boy would know and be delighted by this, there was no stigma whatsoever attached, it was quite the opposite. And, yes, there are "tribes" where there is man-boy "mentoring" that may include forms of sexual relationships. {Not necessarily involving penetration.} I have heard that Japanese Samurai culture was like that too.

I, a heterosexual woman, have during my lifetime been hopelessly in love with little girls. Not much I could do about it. I just lived with it. {Like having a crush on an out-of-reach movie star.}

We all know the novel and film, "Lolita". "Lolita" is even a word now in the English language. We all know of those female schoolteachers jailed for loving their boy students too much. Since "making out with Teacher" is a favorite male fantasy, I wonder if any research has been done showing actual harm done to those boys? The story of the 7-year-old and the 16-year-old boys "making out", would have been very common in previous centuries when poor people OFTEN shared beds, in families, in inns, etc.! {See "Moby Dick".} I see no lasting harm done to the child; EXCEPT for his knowledge of "breaking a taboo of society". As I said, it probably was once a part of everyone's growing up, and not something worthy of being commented on {unless you were fanatically religious!}. Same sexes shared beds as a routine thing; and sex that couldn't lead to pregnancy, between men or between women, between children or same-sex teens, just went on without comment {since TALKING about sex was taboo....}. Unless some snoopy religious people found out about it...... THEN they made people feel "guilty". Just because it was "unlicensed" sex; not because of the ages of the participants.

Since the "sexual revolution" we have been trying to hammer out new boundaries; and have decided that pedophilia is a new boundary; as well as rape; and classify them the same. After all, society can't get along with NO boundaries!

The harm done to children, when it does not involve penetration which could damage a child physically, is in the contradictions surrounding the issue; feelings of guilt and shame. If society "honored" pedophilia as a few other societies have done, and the children themselves felt that sense of being "honored", then there would be no problem. BUT, we are NOT one of those societies; and there are too many reasons to list, why we cannot become like that.

Therefore, hands off the children! is the way we have to go; and full prosecution of those hypocritical double-standard religious types, who introduced their sets of anti-sex, anti-woman, anti-gay phobias to society in the first place.
Pedophilia, like bi-sexuality in some, is part of the "polymorphously perverse" makeup of I would bet a large part of the human race. There is no lack of pedophiles in cultures that allow and encourage that sort of thing. {And the children grow up as normal, stable, sane members of those cultures.} I suspect such feelings have hit more than a few people, now and then in their lives. We all adapt our behavior according to our moral principles and what "works" in a society and what doesn't. "The Greeks did it" is not the proper excuse for behavior that would be damaging to a child in this culture, but not in another.

#98 and #127:
Agreed about the component where the child in the potential 'relationship' will ultimately grow up and then what? This is why I get annoyed by people who claim that pedophilia is like homosexuality. It is not; it is more akin to a kink that is not socially acceptable if truly acted upon. #98 really expressed it well.

#129:
Yes, Lolita is a wonderful book and it is obvious that the main character maintains his love for the adult Lolita (although, it is not clear if he could have sustained a relationship with her if she had desired such a relationship since he really didn't know anything about her). However, if we look at the end of the book we have these words:
"...and then I knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita's absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that concord." (he is referring to the voices of children at play)

At the end, he cares enough for her to realize that what he did destroyed her childhood; that she was not able to be a part of that world which should have been her right. And what is a relationship in which one person destroys another's right?

I remember seeing on Maury once a 40-year-old who looked like she was 9.

KIW needs to find one of those.

Pedophile (96) and Anthropologist (131). I respect that you have learned so much about pedophilia and clearly thought it through. First thing I would like to happen in our society is to finally draw the line between pedophilia, as a sexual orientation, and child rape/sexual assault, as a crime. All too often we call child rapists pedophiles (even when they're not - most men who rape other men in jails are straight) and we call pedophiles child rapists (even when they're not).

I agree with your comments in theory, from personal experience. I understand that not all children are sexual, but I know for sure that I was, from as early an age as I can remember. My parents weren't that sex negative to mess up my feelings about sexuality, but they frowned upon my, at the beginning open, attempts at touching my genitals just enough to let me know I shouldn't do it when other people can see me. At about 7 my sexual fantasies started including other people, real, like my peers, and imaginary adults. I don't think I would have *necessarily* been worse off if I had actually engaged in some sort of sex play with another person, provided we lived in a society in which it was socially accepted.

But - and this is a big but - I sure could have been hurt as well. A child doesn't know its boundaries (it pretty much doesn't know its own anatomy, for starters) so it is likely to say yes to things it will end up regretting. If you never suggest anything and let the child take initiative and do only things it is interested in, and stop doing them whenever it wants, then I can see it being a pleasurable experience for the child. But who is to make sure that's what's gonna happen when an adult is sexual with a child? How many straight people forgo their urges and satisfaction only to do something in the best interest of their sexual partner, even if the partner DOESN'T INSIST on it? Few, if any. We are selfish and if there is a chance to indulge ourselves, we grab it with both hands. And children, not being adults, don't know their best interest, can't predict whether some activity would bring them pleasure or traumatize them, and hence don't insist on keeping that activity out of the picture. That's why I don't think that, in practice, the ideal world in which children can safely and comfortably explore sexuality with adults is possible. Or, the lucky few children may - and the rest will be manipulated and used. (In my pondering how to protect children from manipulators, about the only thing that came to my mind was parents overseeing the whole scene, which is so unthinkable in the society we live in that I can't see it happen, although I try to keep my mind as free of prejudice as possible!)

@ 144
Ok, let's start here: kill the CHILD RAPIST. I hate to reveal my right wing side, but I agree. And all other rapists, while we're at it. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

@122:

Okay, Pedophile, let me tell you something about myself. These aren't pleasant memories for me to revisit, and I almost never talk about them in this kind of detail. (Yes, I know that this mini-memoir will sound extremely rehearsed -- partially because I've been writing it and rewriting it for the past several hours, but mostly because I've done a lot of thinking about it over the years.)

When I was between the ages of eleven and thirteen, I was repeatedly molested by a close male relative. (No, I’m not going to specify which one, even though I’m posting anonymously. For whatever reason, I feel better-equipped to talk about what happened when the “who” part remains a little vague.) There was no penetration – what we did never went beyond partially-clothed grinding and heavy petting and him pressing his face into my crotch. I never cried, I never struggled, I never said ‘no.’ At first – before things became blatantly, unambiguously sexual (to me, at least) – I even initiated some of the touching myself. Did I enjoy it? No. But it was obvious that he wanted it, so very much, and I wanted to make him happy – partially out of a sense of obligation, partially out of genuine love. Possibly (and this is what I’m most ashamed of) I enjoyed having that sense of power over him.

A few months in, I realized that I’d wandered way the fuck off the map of “good” and “normal” and “sane” – I was deep into “here there be dragons” territory. Any power I’d thought I had was purely illusory. I stopped initiating the touching, or reciprocating any of his touches. He just moved my hands where he wanted them – which was mostly his head, while it was in my lap. He wanted me to stroke his hair. He wanted (in his words) to be petted. My petting – which had been willing at first – became distinctly passive-aggressive. I didn’t move my hand until he tugged at my wrist, and when I did, I pulled his hair. But still, I never said ‘no.’

Again, I was motivated by some sense of obligation: he wanted it, and he did so much for me, and I’d done basically the same thing for him many times before, so what right did I have to stop now? So I let him put my hands on his head, and lay back and thought of England.

. . . Well, maybe not England, but I did think of lots of other things. Sometimes, I mentally recited poetry. Those were my poem-memorizing years; at one point, I knew all of "The Waste Land" by heart. (I still remember bits and pieces, but particularly this: “The awful daring of moment’s surrender/Which an age of prudence can never retract.”) And other times, I daydreamed about hiding a kitchen knife under my pillow and stabbing him in the back while he was nuzzling my crotch. It was always a fantasy – something I knew I would never do, something I didn't even really *want* to do -- but I liked to imagine what it might feel like to grip the knife handle and bring my arm down.

Or perhaps I should rephrase: "liked" isn't quite the right word, because there was no real pleasure in the thought. I simply couldn't stop thinking about it -- because, hey, I couldn’t actually work up the nerve to say ‘no’ with my mouth, and he never seemed to notice that I was lying there like a dead thing, but if I drove a knife into the nape of his neck, he'd could hardly miss the point. There was another reason, I think, for the violent turn my imagination took: I'd realized that if I told anybody now, the first question would be “Why didn’t you say anything sooner? Why did you let him do it in the first place? Why did *you* touch *him*?” At best, I would be accused of stupidity and cowardice and weakness; at worst, of active seduction. Again: nothing says “nobody fucks with me” and “no, really, I didn’t want it” quite so concisely as a knife in the back.

And yeah, I know this is melodramatic as all fuck, but there you have it. I was a hopeless emo, long before the word “emo” was even invented. I gouged divots out of my thighs with nail-clippers. I restricted my caloric intake brutally. Worst of all, I wrote poetry. In my defense, perhaps I wouldn't have been quite so much of a gloomy little drama queen if one of my close male relatives wasn’t feeling me up on a regular basis, but who knows? Anyway, to the best of my recollection, that’s what was going through my head when I was being molested. It certainly wasn’t “Yes!” or “More!” or “Tee-hee, Male Relative, that tickles!”

It ended badly. Not with a literal knife in the back, of course, but possibly with a figurative one -- I know my male relative felt deeply betrayed when I “decided” (his word) that all our tender cuddling was, in fact, sexual abuse. As far as I can tell, he still feels betrayed – “sharper than a serpent’s tooth,” and all that. The thing is, though, I wasn’t the one who decided that his weekly attempts to perform cunnilingus on me through my underwear were sexual abuse: I knew that I hated it, and that I was well on my way to hating him, but I’d stopped short of actually applying that particular label.

When I was thirteen, I confided in a riding instructor who was only five or six years older than I was; I thought she was my friend, and – as far as I am consciously aware – I genuinely just wanted to talk to her about this thing that was eating away at me. Or maybe I was looking to impress her with my jaded worldliness, or digging for sympathy. Maybe, in my heart of hearts, I knew that she would pass the tale along to the Proper Authorities, and I was crying out for help – but then again, maybe not. I think I still suffered from a tendency to overestimate the emotional power I held over other people; I assumed that if I made it clear that I would never, ever forgive her if she told anyone, well, then, she wouldn’t tell.

She told.

I won't go into detail about what happened next, although I'm sure you'll be relieved to learn that my loving male relative didn't serve any jail time, or end up on any registry, or even stand trial. Under siege from Social Services, my family discovered an unprecedented sense of shared purpose, and denied, denied, denied. I was sternly counseled about the consequences of breaking the code of Omertà again. (No, I wouldn't be sent to sleep with the fishes -- but I wouldn't be welcome in the family, either.)

Ultimately, things mostly worked out. I'm okay, more or less - and if I'm not quite as happy or mentally healthy as I would have been had those two years of my life gone differently, well, them's the breaks. As far as I know, the male relative in question hasn't abused anyone since. (I've kept careful watch, as have other members of my family, though it's still very much Something We Don't Talk About.) I am relatively certain that my male relative is not and never was a "pedophile" in the clinical sense: he is attracted primarily to adult women. I just . . . happened to be there, and he happened to be deeply lonely. I was extremely tall for my age (in the top tenth of a percentile), even if I was as flat as the proverbial board; I was intellectually precocious (and eager to make sure everyone around me knew it), even if I was emotionally immature. Maybe, if he tilted his head and squinted, I was just adult-like enough to meet whatever minimum standard of "capacity for meaningful consent" he had fixed in his mind.

I still see him, once or twice a year. We hug, and I don't think about stabbing him. It's possible that I even love him -- but not nearly as much as I would if he hadn't done what he did. I feel fundamentally incapable of trusting him, and I believe he feels the same way about me. Like I said, he imagines himself to have been betrayed - but then, we are all the heroes of our own narratives (which is a fancy way of saying I don't give half a fuck what he thinks).

I believe I can anticipate your at least some of your protests, Pedophile. You'll tell me that I am unfairly universalizing my individual experience; I am like a woman who has been raped and therefore assumes that all heterosexual sex must be degrading and traumatic. You'll tell me that my male relative was a child molester, whereas *you* are a pedophile -- apples and oranges, you'll insist.

*You,* of course, are fundamentally different: *you* would never commit incest, *you* would never do anything that a child didn't wholeheartedly desire; *you* would immediately notice if your underaged girlfriend was only playing along, giving you what you wanted, lying there and letting you. *You* would tread carefully, you'll tell me; why, you'd positively tiptoe across the fresh green fields of girlish innocence, you'd pluck no blossom before its time, and everything would be giggling and tickling and butterfly kisses. *You* would be oh-so-careful not to cause any unsightly scarring to delicate little psyches; after all, *you* love children.

If anything in the above two paragraphs even vaguely resembles your personal opinions, then I think you're suffering from severe cognitive distortion (by which I mean you're full of shit). But then, I'm sure that you are already aware of my feelings, and I doubt I'm going to change your mind. Still, allow me to share one last thought before I sign off: the man who molested me thought that I wanted it, that I had agreed to it, that I had in fact *asked* for it. He genuinely believed that he was loving me and being close to me and making me happy.

I didn't, and he wasn't.

@143:

>>>If you never suggest anything and let the child take initiative and do only things it is interested in, and stop doing them whenever it wants, then I can see it being a pleasurable experience for the child.<<<

Sorry, but this suggestion strikes me as being laughably naive. Children are hypersensitive to the desires and intentions of adults around them, even if they don't always understand those desires or intentions in the way that another adult would. They're more than capable of figuring out what an adult *wants* them to do, even when the adult doesn't specifically *ask* them to do it. Granted, children can't telepathically pluck specific sexual fantasies from their molesters' minds, but they will very likely realize that they are expected to permit or even initiate touching, *even when nothing has actually been said.*

What a wide ranging course of conversation. Everyone is an expert! Everyone has a theory!

--
Dan Savage, you're a big wimp hiding behind that expert. You're a typical sex-lib type who day-dreams about how great it is all kinds of kinks are on the table, while blissfully ignoring the breathtaking expansion of state powers in the name of protecting the children from sex. The sexual liberation movement has been matched, if not outmatched, by an anti-sexual hysteria that has eroded civil liberties, and rendered hundreds of thousands of people (effectively) non-citizens, with little hope of integration into society, and sent probably a million more into hiding. But those are not legitimate subjects of review for a sex columnist.

That's why I think Dan Savage is a nitwit day dreamer with no real politics.
--

Here is a miniature pedophile manifesto, a rough argument. I know you were waiting for it.

THE PEDOPHILE SYSTEM
Some axioms, off the top of my head.

0a. A society that hunts down and destroys any of its minority populations, and does not give those minority populations representation in government or other major social organizations is an ILLEGITIMATE AND UNJUST SOCIETY THAT MUST BE CHANGED.

0b. Political decisions that do not take into account the reasonable views of those affected by those decisions are UNJUST. This is democracy 101. Thus the reasonable views of children, adolescents, pedophiles, abuse victims, and experts must all be involved in this discussion.

1. Children and adolescents are sexual beings, their sexuality varying by the individual. Some are more sexual, some less. Some want sex, some want to masturbate, some don't. Some report negative experiences, and some positive.

2. Most pedophiles have a moral capacity, just as most other people do. Only very few of them are violent, and although many may falter by interpreting signals incorrectly, the vast majority want to do the right thing. They don't just say that, they believe it.

3. Pedophilia made public, given reasons and discourse, institutions, and legitimacy, will order itself in time to its special role. Pedophilia is amenable, changeable, improvable.

Given 1. sexual potential of youth, 2. the moral capacity of pedophiles, and 3. the power of social influence over behavior,

4. We seek out the norms of a legitimate pedophilia. Let's turn the etiology of harm into the etiology of pleasure and positive experiences. We need examine in detail the positive reports of sexual behavior by children and adolescents in order to determine if there is any meaningful pattern to the positivity. If so, this is the recipe for positive intergenerational relationships. This is our system of norms.

(Critics of pedophiles misunderstand the position of pedophiles. They believe pedophiles don't understand the harm they do, when in reality no pedophile with half a brain says sex poses no risks to anyone under any conditions. The political and moral position of pedophiles is centered on the possibility of POSITIVE pedophile relations, not harm. You can prove harm all you like, all day long, for 10 centuries. If you haven't DISPROVED positive relationships, you haven't debunked the pedophile position. No you haven't. The challenge to real critics of pedophilia, ones who actually care if they are right or wrong, and whether pedophiles can trust what they say: Are there positive pedophile relationships? Do these relationships have characteristics that distinguish them from negative relationships? Can these characteristics be implemented as social institutions? Can we reasonably expect people to conform to the norms a sufficient amount of the time? Critics are absolutely adamant that pedophiles NEVER do any good for children, and never bring them pleasure, sexual or otherwise. They refuse to accept positive reports and evidence as bearing any significance. If you find a positive report online, you almost invariably find a psychotherapist or a "survivor" nipping at his or her heels declaring them pre-therapy, without knowledge of their experience, and therefore not a valid witness to their own experience. And these people attack pedophile critics of the "abuse industry" for ignoring data, and nobody questions them because the pedophile position has no legitimacy. But this attitude ABSOLUTELY UNDERMINES POLITICAL JUSTICE AND THE LEGITIMACY OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY.)

5. Wrong, harmful, and ridiculous situations are avoidable under four conditions which enable us to apply our system of norms. a) It is a declared relationship, not a secret one. b) A system of social support and investigation exists to guide these relationships to a norm. c) Straying from the norm results in serious punishment. d) A regime of reverse onus on the adult.

6. Declared relationships mean the relationship is under public scrutiny for the very matter we have concerns about. Instead of suspicion, it is a watchful eye, the same watchful eye we put out for our friends and relatives in their relationships.

7. Organizations that help, rather than harm and humiliate pedophiles, would guide pedophiles and their child or adolescent friends. Perhaps registration with such organizations would be required by law. Unregistered relationships or individuals might be punished as automatically illegal.

8. We already have a system of serious punishments. Fear of being caught in an illicit relationship would push people to make them licit by declaring them, resulting in gradual normalization. In this way punishments normalize car and gun ownership, and the right to practice law, among other things.

9. Reverse onus means the adult has to prove the willing participation of his young love, and prove the rightness of his relationship, rather than claim benefit of the doubt.

10. The age of consent should be set to that age where the child could be reasonably assumed to participate meaningfully in the institutions of pedophilia which have been organized to make it legitimate. Off the top of my head, 9 or 10.

11. Celibacy should be viewed as the norm for pedophiles, with sexual relationships occurring as an exception to the rule if and only if they comply with rigorous demands by the community.

12. If, after (4) no system of norms can be agreed upon by a consensus of reasonable pedophiles and reasonable critics of pedophilia, no system of legitimate pedophile relations can be established.

13. If (12), this reasoning must be communicated in a non-hostile way to pedophiles, and support systems that enable pedophiles to live valued lives as active citizens must be put in place.

14. If (12), reasonable accommodation must be made to allow pedophiles to have their own sexual culture that harms no one, such as a right to pornography that does not involve real minors. Extinguishing sexuality can never be the objective.

ANYTHING LESS THAN THIS UNJUST, UNFAIR, UNREASONABLE, UNDEMOCRATIC, UNSCIENTIFIC, AND UNACCEPTABLE.

1-11 provide a framework intended to avoid the following problems.

1) violence and rape

2) secretive, manipulative grooming, by allowing and encouraging outside influence

3) lack of communication between pedophiles about their desires and activities with others who can advice, influence, and protect them.

4) lack of communication between children having sexual experiences and the people who can advice, influence, and protect them.

5) the development of society into a police state.
--

I will make a rather strong claim, to which all are invited to respond.

There is a relationship between the extreme prohibition of pedophilia and the recent development of violent child pornography.

The relation is simple. As repression increased, the communities which were self-moderating collapsed. In this way, after a hundred such attacks, pedophiles are increasingly pushed far out onto the margins of the online world, where encryption and anonymity make not only investigation by the authorities impossible, but relationships to other pedophiles even more abstract. In these contexts, behavior has no consequences. In addition, with the political movement in collapse, there is little hope for public acceptance.

The consequence of harsh repression has been the collapse of a guiding internal dialogue, which I will call the normative pedophile. This is the pedophile you should want, the one who wants to do right, even if he doesn't know what that is. He is replaced by a cynical, angry pedophile who has been made increasingly selfish by the effects of anonymity, isolation, and feelings of humiliation.

For some of these pedophiles, the collapse is complete, and the dark elements of sexuality flowered. Horrible pornography was created and distributed. This not only poisoned the pedophile community, like the release of crack laced with rat poison in the inner city. It caused an even greater attack on pedophiles by the state, because of the insane behavior of a few.

The repression gets more extreme, and the ones being repressed get more extreme. As the repression destroys pedophiles, the pedophiles are imploding and becoming more destructive, to themselves and others. Pedophiles grow more desperate by the day to reach out and form community, which are themselves destroyed.

Please comment! I'm sure the experts in the room have loads to say.
--

The only solution to the pedophile problem, besides gas chambers or a police state that watches everything we do at all times, is dialog, reason, sharing, and acceptance. In a word: DEMOCRACY.

There are two possibilities that are just, which I have outlined, both of which depend on a serious investigation into the possibility of positive pedophile relations. The first accepts the sexual potential of young people, and the amenable natures of pedophiles, to discover a legitimate system of pedophile relations. The second finds no map to positive pedophile relations, and communicates this specifically to pedophiles. In both cases, the pedophile point of view is not only consulted (which it never is today), but given legitimacy and taken seriously.

ONLY WHEN THE PEDOPHILE POINT OF VIEW IS ADMITTED AS LEGITIMATE, WHETHER IT IS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED AS MISGUIDED OR ULTIMATELY VINDICATED, WILL WE HAVE JUSTICE ON THIS MATTER IN THE WESTERN WORLD. ONLY THEN WILL SOCIETY HAVE A CLAIM TO THE LEGITIMACY OF ITS INSTITUTIONS DIRECTED AT PEDOPHILES.

So far the only discussion we're getting is that between the gas chamber aficionados and the supporters of the police state. There is almost no attempts to compassionately reach out to pedophiles, or to take their point of view as the legitimate experience of citizens of a state that has its best interests at heart. And that is why pedophiles are arming themselves for war.

Perhaps in the future we will begin discussions about the conditions of the ceasefire between a lost, broken, and misunderstood sexual minority, and an unjust and cruel society rightly concerned about their children but engaging things in all the wrong ways.

More likely, we'll have Dan Savage and his chorus of castration, until America morally suicides in a home grown genocide.

ENJOY!

@149:

>>>And then those who have carefully considered this issue and suggest that mutual sexual consent between an adult and a child can exist are like wizards bringing fire to barbarians for the first time.<<<

Really? 'Cause from where I stand, they look more like a bunch of willfully deluded, pathologically entitled, self-serving sociopaths who would find a way to rationalize eating human eyeballs straight out of the socket if that was what got them off.

Funny how it's always adults who advocate the sexual "liberation" of children, isn't it? If children are so eager to have sexual contact with adults, you have to wonder why the children don't ask for it themselves -- it's not as if kids are shy about asking for anything else that they want. Anyone who has been around children knows that even the best-behaved of them whine, wheedle, pout, beg, extort, and downright *demand* things far more often than any decently-socialized adult ever would. But weirdly enough, children seldom pester the adults around them for genital stimulation. They mostly seem to be after another half-hour of playtime or a new set of Pokemon cards or an extra scoop of ice cream or a trip to the zoo. I mean, when's the last time you saw little Jimmy throwing a temper tantrum in aisle four because his mom wouldn't let him make out with the store clerk?

Granted, there's an element of positive reinforcement here; part of the reason children ask for things like sweets, toys, and playtime so insistently is because they occasionally succeed in getting what they're after. Most adults, when faced with a request for sexual stimulation from a child, would not oblige, and many of them would be visibly angry or upset, which would discourage the child from making similar requests in the future. Still, I have seen children make requests that have absolutely zero precedent of success, and continue making those requests long after the point that the adult they're asking has become very obviously irritated. The standard tactic here appears to be to back off before the adult loses his/her temper and then resume the campaign at some point in the near future, but I've seen certain children persist in pestering an adult for whatever it is they want even when the adult is downright *furious.* Again, it never seems to be sex that they're asking for.

I'm not claiming that children are asexual -- they obviously aren't, although I do believe that, on average, their sex drives are both qualitatively different and quantitatively lesser than adult sex drives.

If you'll bear with me, here's a quick thought experiment: imagine a world in which adults will grant any request for sexual contact that children make of them. (For the purposes of this exercise, let's define "children" as "persons age ten and under.") When any such request is made, the adult becomes an automaton -- they do only what it is that the child desires, and their demeanor is completely neutral, neither encouraging nor discouraging. Afterward, they have no recollection of what they have done; it does not in any way affect their behavior towards or perception of the child. When they are not in their "automaton" state, adults experience zero sexual attraction to children, and are not aware that sexual interactions between adults and children are even possible. Thus, pedophilia is neither stigmatized nor glamorized in any way.

I know that such a world is logistically impossible, and that it is premised on something of a false dichotomy between sexual and non-sexual contact, but the underlying question is this: if adult desire (even the "selfless" desire to express love or give pleasure) were totally removed from the equation, and if adults were fundamentally incapable of initiating sexual contact with children or in any way indicating that such sexual contact was possible, how much adult/child hanky-panky do you think would be going on? I'm sure children would still play "doctor" and touch themselves and so on, but how often would they actively seek sexual interaction with adults, if there were truly *no* encouragement or invitation from the adult side, and *no* possibility of positive reinforcement afterward?

Imagine, if you will, a ratio (assume that the populations being compared are of equal size): "Incidence of sexual contact between children and 'on-demand-only amnesiac sexbot adults'" versus "Incidence of sexual contact between children and 'non-celibate pedophiles who claim that they would never do anything a child didn't want them to do.'"

Would this ratio be 1:1? I doubt it. Somehow, I think that the pedophiles who swore up and down that they would never do anything a child didn't want them to do would still end up having a lot more sex with children than the sexbot adults who were genuinely incapable of having, wanting, or even *imagining* any sexual contact with a child that the child did not want first.

Or, to state my thesis in the simplest possible terms: what a pedophile perceives to be genuine desire on the part of his young partner is, in fact, entirely or almost entirely his *own* desire, either projected by the pedophile or dutifully mimicked by his victim.

. . . This thread is taking up far too much of my time and emotional energy. I'm off to bed, and depending on how I feel tomorrow, I might bow out of this discussion.

To those of you who suggested therapy: I genuinely appreciate your concern, but I am in counseling and have been in counseling since dinosaurs roamed the earth. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "it's not your fault" . . . well, I couldn't quite retire, but I could probably finance a pretty nice vacation. But thank you for being so understanding.

how can you people really consider being a pedophile (i.e. wanting to abuse children thinking you love them and are doing them some good) at the same level as being homosexual or having a kink like rape fantasies or with lusting after 16 year olds? are you stupid? sorry for the bad language but all this comments are very annoying.
do you believe all sexual tendencies are genetic and thus NOT YOUR CHIOCE and/or not your responsability?
we as adults are responsible for what we like, for what we do and what we choose.

@148, in their interaction with peers, children aren't so eager to please. They're often eager to beat the shit out of them, even. They're only eager to please when the other person is in the position of authority - so what we really want is kids not to take every adult person's authority for granted. Is it possible? Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know.

I can't believe all the sympathetic responses to KIW. AAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW. You feel frustrated because you have impulses you can't act on? Join the crowd. Everyone has impulses that they suppress everyday, all the time. Imagine a world where people could just do whatever they wanted. Thats why we are a society of rules and law.
What KIW has is the kind of broke you can't fix. I'd recommend a bullet to the head. And the concern over not being able to babysit for friends is fugazee. I'm a male in my thirties and have NEVER been asked to babysit children alone for any period of time over about ten minutes. Thats a situation I think KIW puts himself in. He's probably some kind of coach or has some job where he has contact with kids. This guy is a bomb about to go off. I hope someone catches on before its too late and he victimizes some kid.

Responding to several posters, so this may be rather lengthy.

@124:
I am not defending child molesters, ie. jerks who manipulate kids into sex. I think it is a horrid thing, and wish it never happened. I would never betray the trust of a child I knew. If some sexplay were to occur (which it won't because I don't want harm to come to her, which it would in this society), it would only be because my partner clearly indicated that that is what she wanted to do. While it is generally true that cognitive potential is not at a maximum until young adulthood (declining thereafter), that says nothing of cognitive ability, nor does it say anything of what minimal cognitive ability may be required to consent. And I really do think that kids should be empowered to make decisions more independently, with guidance and within reason of course.

With regard to love: Feelings are innate. You could argue that they become more complex as one gets older and is more experienced with dealing with them, and that argument certainly has merit. But a person is always able to feel any emotion, and kids are no exception, even when it comes to love. I do realize that the love may very well be very different in the level of complexity than what I might feel, but to say that it is impossible for a mutual love to develop is utterly incorrect.

@127
Good point to bring up. I think this is a common misconception about pedophiles. Falling out of love due to a girl's age is ridiculous to me. I can assure you that wouldn't happen. I think the best analogy for non-pedophiles is this: What happens when a loving couple reaches the retirement age? Do they suddenly fall out of love because of physical changes? No. But the love is still there. The same would be true quite generally of the hypothetical adult-child relationship. I will not fall out of love with her because she passes some biological milestone.

@135
I might point out that the taboo has only existed in recent times, and furthermore that the presumption of harm being inherent to non-penetrative, consensual sexual activity with prepubescents has already been refuted in the Rind meta-analysis. This was condemned by Congress, but only because the statistical methods used were too sound for peer review to reject the results of the analysis.

@143
If someone does something sexually to another person that the other person doesn't want, then it is sexual abuse. Laws can easily cover real abuse, and should, without criminalizing consensual behaviors. Now, kids today are at a disadvantage when dealing with adults because they have fewer positive legal rights (ie. they don't have an absolute right to free speech) and are taught that adults are always right and always a figure of authority. But this is not right. Adults are not inherently superior to children, and moreover, I might point out that this kind of societally enforced power difference between all kids and all adults makes it far easier for someone who actually wants to hurt a child (which is utterly revolting) to do so, for the simple reason that they are already seen as an authority figure. Not a good thing at all, and I am hopeful that this kind of thing will be eliminated someday. Now, I do think that young kids need a loving support system where they can be completely open and without fear of negative reactions about their feelings. This would help to keep abusive situations from developing, or continuing if they do come up. Today, kids aren't able to be completely open with their parents, for instance, because they have learned through experience that expressing certain things will make them very angry, and that is to say nothing of the cases where crappy parents are the abusers (and child abuse is often committed by crappy parents).

@147
I am so sorry to hear what happened to you. That you obviously didn't enjoy it is what matters, and that your uncle didn't care to consider your feelings is revolting. That your uncle was in a position of power over you further makes it clear that this was not consensual activity. I would not wish anything like what happened to you to happen to anyone else, and am saddened that you had to endure this. I am further saddened that your uncle was never punished for his crimes. I really wish that all these things never happened to you. It is so sad that you, or any child, would ever have to go through something like this.

I do think loving adult-child relationships are possible (though unlikely today, and stupid to pursue in any event), but the older person has a responsibility to be sensitive to what the child is actually feeling, not just what he or she says. Your uncle clearly was not. Moreover, I feel that the child needs a loving support system where they can be completely honest about what they are feeling, and to be able to discuss the relationship. There are a lot of changes that need to happen in society before this is a possibility, but I do think it can happen. But it should never resemble what your uncle did to you.

@112. So I tried to imagine a society in which I would feel comfortable about a child having an open, loving, benevolent erotic relationship with an adult. You and @156 sketched out some conditions to help me imagine that.

I'm writing here as someone who regularly fantasizes about BEING a child having sex with an adult - and who has done since childhood. So I don't have precisely the same kind of squick that others might do about thinking this through.

But however I think about it, my imaginings of that society hit a wall, very quickly, for these reasons: 1) Erotic feelings are frequently overpowering even for healthy, well intentioned adults. Anyone who's ever had an affair or a dodgy fuck against their better judgement has experienced that. Anyone who's ever felt unreasonably wounded by a lover's cool look or careless word knows that. This is how come people hurt each other and themselves in love ALL. THE. TIME. Erotic feelings override our rationality with great frequency and predictability. Emotional harm is not restricted to erotic relationships, but erotic vulnerability increases the frequency and intensity of that harm beyond measure. So when I see an adult saying they are 'in love' with a kid, I fear for that kid. Not because pedophiles are monsters, but because people in love are (often beautiful but almost invariably) vulnerable, narcissistic and emotionally volatile. Their partners need to match them in power and experience to make things safe.

2) Kids' brains have a shitload of developmental work to do. If they are repeatedly flooded by the chemical highs and crashes of a developed erotic relationship (feelings exaggerated by a power differential) then they can't do that work effectively. Flooding them, even if they like it (or get addicted to it), constitutes harm.

It troubles me that so many of the pedophiles who have written here are invested in a more or less elaborate utopian vision of a time (even far off, unattainable) when society will mold to their longings. This seems a fragile belief structure - it fosters the sense that you're excluded because of society's stupidity (and so festering anti-social resentment, anger...) and it MASKS the POWER DIFFERENTIAL that you don't acknowledge, and that will never, ever go away because is INHERENT in the distinctions 'adult' and 'child'.

Yes, I did keep my discussion on this particular point short, because I didn't want the post to be too long. All this is true, in the society that we have today. It will be true for a long time to come as well. There is a lot that would have to change before such a relationship could exist, and that is why I don't think it is appropriate for such a relationship to exist today. My point is though that this doesn't and shouldn't be the case. I do think that our society could do much better at empowering kids to make their own decisions (within reason, obviously) in all areas of life, and that moreover that this would be more consistent with the ideals of freedom and equality for all. With regards to these hypothetical erotic relationships in particular, I think that they should always be completely out in the open and with the kids understanding that they have every right to refuse to do something they don't want to, and that they always have someone else to discuss their feelings with. I should also mention that I don't think relationships where an adult is in a definite position of power over a child (like a parent) should ever be allowed.

I didn't mean to imply that I am perfect. No one is. People can and do hurt others emotionally. If it is intentional, that is someone uses emotional black mail or manipulation or anything else, then it is clearly a crime and should be punished, often severely. Unintentional harm is harder to predict, and it really isn't restricted to erotic relationships - it can and will occur in any type of relationship someone could be involved in. If we could completely protect kids from emotional harm in all instances without preventing them from being able to have independence, then I would support it wholeheartedly. But I don't think this is possible, so I argue that kids should be empowered to make their own decisions and to have the tools to handle emotional troubles when they do come. To minimize any emotional harm that does occur, I think that kids (and really all people) should have a loving support system where they can be completely honest and open about their feelings without any fear of retribution or angry reactions.

ugh, apologies, last two paragraphs of my last post (167) are not mine, but pasted in from @a pedophile - I meant to cut them.

I see no reason to be compasssionate to someone who gets off on children. He needs fixing. You wouldn't hesitate to say a schizophrenic needs the the help of a professional and drug therapy, why would you give this fucker a pass?

The "I would never..." is bullshit, and we all know it. I bet Dan wouldn't be so compassionate if it was his son this guy was getting off on. Not every sexual urge is ok, and what the hell is wrong with saying "being into children is not ok no matter what you haven't done yet, get thee to a a psychiatrist before you hurt someone, rather than after."

Someone who gets off on children is not an innocent human being. They have sexual desires for a vulnerable population, that is not innocent. The fact that this sick bastard actually wants to "babysit" for his friends should set off warning bells, giant clanging ones.

Dan usually gives good and reasonable advice, but his urge to sound enlightened has overcome plain old good sense in this case.

Yes. I am a genius. A true, visionary sort of genius, and you don't deserve me.

Knows It's Wrong/KIW is a 'Brown Star Pedophile', and an asshole.

Knows It's Wrong/KIW is a 'Brown Star Pedophile', and an asshole.

You and all of your other obvious-to-me pseudonyms you've been posting since this topic began.

Pfft.

Edit THAT, you control-freak genuine pussy!

@157:
With respect to your thought experiment: I don't think the ratio you brought up would be 1-1 either, but then, why should we assume that the kids who did want to be sexual with an adult would also want to be sexual with what was essentially a robot? They are two very different things. Given the choice, would a "normal" person choose another adult who was fully aware of what they were doing, or essentially a robot, to have sex with? The sexuality of children is different from that of the typical adult, but the desire for "social sexuality" over "individual sexuality" is probably the same. I should also make it clear (again) that I DON'T think that all children would desire sexual activity with an adult. Some may though.

"Really? 'Cause from where I stand, they look more like a bunch of willfully deluded, pathologically entitled, self-serving sociopaths who would find a way to rationalize eating human eyeballs straight out of the socket if that was what got them off."

Oh thanks a lot [/sarcasm]. So I'm just some "monster" in your eyes? I know you probably don't care, but that does hurt. A lot.

@167:
What I hope and argue for should not be viewed as a "pedo-utopia," nor should it be considered unattainable. But what is that, really? It is a society where kids are freer, and on a more equal footing with older people. And it isn't just a few pedophiles supporting this for what may be construed as "selfish" desires - true youth rights groups (meaning those which seek equal rights for legally defined minors with legally defined adults) do exist and are quite active today. Consider the National Youth Rights Association, and Americans for a Society Free From Age Restrictions as examples of this. As for my support of this being selfish: If a proposal came up tomorrow that would extend full sexual rights to kids but nothing else, I would be speaking out against it and encouraging others to keep it from being passed. I actually think that such a situation would be worse for kids than what is seen today. A society where kids are on par with adults and exercise the same rights (within reason and with guidance, of course) may seem impossible to realize, but it was also once "impossible" that Blacks would one day be equals. There are special issues that need special consideration for young children obviously. So when I speak of full rights for kids, what I mean is that they should be allowed to exercise them but with consideration given to their actual abilities and with guidance and support from someone they trust, like a parent. And of course, it should always be noted that the restrictions of kids' rights seen today is in many instances very new to society, especially with regards to post-pubescent youths, where the restrictions are entirely new to modern society. Yes, there is a power differential existing today, but I don't see that as something that society should think about keeping, nor can I ever view it as right.

@171
I mean a mutual, loving adult-child erotic relationship. Someone who views and uses children as an object disgusts me. That person would NEVER be me. Yes, adults and kids are not on par at all in today's society. I don't think that to be a good thing. I want kids to be empowered. There will be some special issues to consider of course, and their free exercise of their rights (including sexual) should be with consideration given to their abilities and with guidance and support. And I don't mean it is "my right" to be sexual with children. Rather I want it to be any kid's right to say 'yes' or 'no' to something. If every kid in the world would always say 'no' then I would still want them to have the right to choose. And the bigger issue is that civil rights are broadly denied to kids. If I was given the choice to pick exactly one right for kids to have unconditionally, the last one I would choose is sexual rights (and that is the truth, no matter how much you might want to think a "monster" like me only cares about having sex with kids). In that circumstance I would choose the right to vote. You might protest by claiming that kids are incompetent at all times, but please read up on the Sudbury schools (they are not a school for the gifted or anything either). These are democratically run schools, where among other things, every student and faculty member has an equal vote in deciding everything relating to the administration of the school. Kids as young as six attending these schools demonstrate the ability of making informed and beneficial decisions (on something which has a fair degree of complexity to it and is of direct consequence for them) with some guidance.

To A Pedophile,

"So I'm just some "monster" in your eyes?"

Well, lemme check...yes. The answer to your question is yes.

Who gives a fuck if you were molested or abused as a kid? And who gives a fuck over how tortured you are about this ? What matters is what you do as an adult. And you ARE a ticking bomb--you will give in, you will hurt a child one day. And you will hurt that child so much that the damage will be irreparable. And it's people like you that have made my world, my health, my sexuality, a living hell for the majority of my life.

Yes--please go castrate yourself. Right now.

Go watch the movie Little Children to see how it's done.

To A Pedophile,

"So I'm just some "monster" in your eyes?"

Well, lemme check...yes. The answer to your question is yes.

Who gives a fuck if you were molested or abused as a kid? And who gives a fuck over how tortured you are about this ? What matters is what you do as an adult. And you ARE a ticking bomb--you will give in, you will hurt a child one day. And you will hurt that child so much that the damage will be irreparable. And it's people like you that have made my world, my health, my sexuality, a living hell for the majority of my life.

Yes--please go castrate yourself. Right now.

Go watch the movie Little Children to see how it's done.

@177
"I mean a mutual, loving adult-child erotic relationship." Are all relationships between adults loving? No, often it is just sex, selfish sex, without much care or attachment to your partner.

While there are relationships where one adult gives themselves completely to their partner, letting the partner make decisions for them (talking about BDSM here) and trusting their dom to make decisions in the best interest of the sub, for every decent dom there are tons of dickheads who only want to have their selfish needs met and don't give a rat's ass about what's in their sub's best interest. There are ways for an adult sub to recognize a quality dom, and dickheads I described are not welcome in BDSM community; a child, however, is not able to identify them.

So how exactly do you think it can be ensured that in all adult-child erotic relationships are loving and that the adult in that relationship will only do things in the best interest of the child?

Simple rule - do not take advantage of the vulnerable.

I am going to come out for the first time in this anonymous forum. I'm a "gold star." Many people consider me a nice, compassionate person. It's people like "yes, you are sick" that remind me in this society it's not OK to tell anyone, not a therapist, not a friend, not anyone. I would be afraid to ask a girlfriend to wear a schoolgirl outfit. Luckily I am attracted to older girls. I just haven't had any girlfriends, mostly from bad self esteem problems. Just so you all know, not all pedophiles were abused but most of us have very low self esteem for one reason or another (thinking that you are a monster doesn't help). I don't know if I will ever have an intimate relationship with a consenting adult, but I would still be constantly afraid that she would read my mind somehow and discover my deep dark secret.

To KIW, stay away from kids in all circumstances. I have had many people tell me what a great teacher I would make but that will never happen. My excuse, of course, is that I "don't like kids"

@179:
Hurting a child is unimaginable to me. I cannot think of something more revolting. And I know that if I were to engage in sexual activity with a little girl I might be attracted to, that in today's world it would be basically guaranteed that harm would come, so I will never even consider coming close to doing that. Above all else, I do not want any harm to come to a child.

@181:
The slavery comparison is a bad one to make. What I argue for is not to control another human being as my personal property, but to empower kids to be as independent as they are able to be, in general. Yes this would have to be within reason for any rights. And kids would need to always have honest guidance and support from someone they can be completely honest without fearing negative reactions. We can recognize that most ten-year olds, say, wouldn't be able to drive safely, or that the basic academic concepts (reading, writing, arithmetic) should be compulsory, or other things like this. That doesn't mean that we should say that in all instances, a person under age X cannot possibly have the competence and ability to exercise a certain right. Even with voting, children who attend a Sudbury style school (democratic) demonstrate the ability to make a sound decision in their votes, with some guidance.

And please look into why the child sexuality taboo in particular developed in the first place. The main reason was a movement towards a Puritan style anti-sex value system. It didn't come into place to "protect" kids, but to enforce a particular religious view on society. I should point out that it is being applied against those which it supposedly protects as well. I am sure that you have heard of the "sexting" prosecutions, and similar nonsense. Yes, many kids do not desire sexual contacts with adults. And I would never force them to change their minds in any way. What they think and feel about that is what is important, and I don't think that I, you, or some bureaucrat a thousand miles away has any right to make the decision for them. It assumes way too much about the kid and also assumes kids to be uniformly the same and incapable, and I would hope that you can recognize that this isn't the case.

@182:
I think that kids need to always have guidance and support, which at the same time recognizes that the kid needs to have some independence, from someone they can trust absolutely. It would be a good thing to strongly discourage someone who is inexperienced with erotic relationships from jumping into one with the first person they might think cares about them (and really this would apply to anyone of any age who has not had significant experience with erotic or other close non-familial relationships).

A kid in this situation should know that they aren't obligated in any way to engage in something, and that they should talk about it with someone (probably a parent) if they have any doubts whatsoever, especially since they would almost certainly have little or zero experience with these things. If the potential partner seemed like a jerk (who wouldn't be sensitive to the kid's feelings and needs, or who might be lieing about his or her true intentions) to the parent, then I think the parent should be allowed to exercise some reasonable discretion in keeping a young child from engaging with the jerk. And at all times in the relationship, the child be able to have an open and honest talk about how they are feeling about the relationship with his or her parents, and to receive honest advice and guidance.

A pedophile is ruining it for the rest of us.

There are three ways a "gold star" pedophile crosses the line.

1: Opportunity. Stay away from kids! Don't be a parent, teacher, coach, priest, doctor, or babysitter. Hell, stay away from the park and zoo.

2: Sociopaths. They just don't care if they hurt others. Lock them up, chemical castration, whatever it takes.

3: The self deluded. Nambla types like A pedophile who convince themselves that in some narrow circumstance the kid just might want it and not suffer from the experience. Haven't you heard from the victims on this page? IT'S NOT OK, GET A CLUE!

@ A Pedophile: kids DO NOT HAVE to capacity for judgment to engage in a sexual relationship with an adult; they don't have the capacity to understand fully what they are agreeing to or how it will affect them. Period, forever, end of story. All your fancy words & rationalizing don't change that imbalance: in an adult/child "relationship", the adult is doing all of the deciding.

Kids playing doctor w/ other kids/peers: okay & normal. Adult/kid erotic relationship: never okay. & I don't mean an 18-year old kid & his 16-year-old girlfriend.

When someone stops being a kid is determined by law. Whether that law is 100% in synch with an actual young person's sex drive or not, it's there to protect them.

I'm a woman, & my mom left the care of me & my brothers up to various babysitters. Twqo of the male ones came on to me (I was 7, second time 9) as did the first guy I ever worked for (ice cream shop, I was 12). If I hadn't gotten into my dad's dirty magazines I wouldn't have had any idea what these scumbags were after. But I had, & I did, & I was able to wiggle my way out of the situation.

I had nice normal sexual curiosity, focused on kids my own age when I was a wee kid. But after being repeatedly hit on/creeped out by older guys, I ate a whole lot, gained a buncha weight in an atempt to disappear & had a pile of sexual hangups for a long time. It completely fucked me up & they never got past the elastic of my underwear.

If you are a pedophile, do something. Drugs, therapy, something, Rewire your desires. They're NOT normal, they're NOT okay. & FOR FUCK'S SAKE DO NOT FUCKING BABYSIT. Find a reason, just don't do it, said the formerly babysat. & don't expect your 50-cent words to make me think anything other than age play between adults is okay, ever, ever.

Hear hear, @187 and @188.

@A pedophile: a little of the power imbalance between adults and children is the result of social conditioning that could potentially be redressed by empowering kids. Most of it is not. The whole reason we have that category 'a child' is that it takes TIME for people to become intellectually, physically and emotionally equipped with a sound framework to deal with life. We have long childhoods these days because our lifestyles are enormously sophisticated. That's not going to change.

You indirectly acknowledge the inherent power imbalance every time you say (and you say it often) that children should be provided 'with guidance'. And every time you say that you endorse taking the protection of children away from collective social responsibility and putting it into the hands of individual adults, or small groups of adults, with vested interests. That is not about protecting children. That is about making them more available to adult desire.

Pedophilic desire is FOUNDED on the differences between adults and children. And so your arguments that you want kids to be empowered or equals just don't ring true. You insist repeatedly that you would never hurt a child, but you show a very, very limited understanding of what harm for a child could be. And the limited understanding - the limited responses to the range of points presented to you - is sounding pretty willful. At the very least it's making me think you must have some huge blind-spots about your own childhood and emotional development. I hope you keep your vows to stay away from kids, even in a non-physical emotional capacity. And I hope you can get help to consider yourself and your situation honestly, rather than focusing on remodelling society.

Hi Another Pedophile - I appreciate your filling in more of the picture by writing frankly about your experiences. I'm sorry for all the isolation and self-hatred you've experienced, and I'm really glad you are coming to a better, healthier place. I think your insight about self-hatred and exile is probably right on the money.

I don't agree with the child/adult = woman/man analogy. Because if you don't believe that kids have the capacity to be equal partners (and I don't either), then it follows that desire to have sex with kids is always the desire to have sex with an unequal partner. I don't condemn this as fantasy, and in fantasy I understand that the focus may well not be on any harmful expression of power. But I do believe (and here I'm in part informed by my own fantasies) that power dynamics are deeply and inextricably embedded in the desire (and actually in all desire).

I also believe that this is part of what makes fantasies and desires richly informative about our inner lives. They are beautiful source of self-knowledge. A physical type is not just a physical type. It embodies something, speaks to us in complex and highly personal ways - hence the obsessive potential of attraction. I think that listening fully to those desires for the self-knowledge [NOT the same as acting on them, obviously] is the way out of fear, self-hatred, and stuck-ness in a fantasy. It works for me.

I don't have anything to add to the discussion aside from the points already made. But thank you Dan for doing this column and provoking one of the best discussions I've seen on pedophilia. The fact that you've changed the minds of many readers who simply don't realize what it's like to be a pedophile encourages me so much.

And thanks from the bottom of my heart to all those lending support to KIW. It means so much to me that you all are able to look beyond the institutionalized hype and hate and treat the issue with the rationality it deserves.

This discussion is very amazing indeed.

As someone said, we cant just bury our head in the sand and expect that these problems go away.

Empathy is always a good thing. Empathy is what leads this man to fight his paedophilic desires out of understanding for the harm he could cause children.

Lack of empathy is the fundamental ingredient of sociopathy. This man appears to have empathy. It follows that he does not seem to be a Sociopath.

I hope he does get the treatment or support that will be effective and should he fight his urges successfully I think on some sort of fundamental human level he has won a tremendous battle. Going to war against the Devil and winning even.

It must be re-affirmed that Paedophilic acts should never should never be seen as appropriate. It fucks kids up. Even if they could be said to 'want it' at the time, we generally as a society do take the liberty to deem that young people cant do/shouldnt do certain things they might 'want to'.

We dont let young people take certain risks because it can cause harm. We dont let young people consent to certain acts because of harm.

How great to have a forum to talk about these things. I could never tell a therapist or be part of some kind of study. I would be way to afraid. I guess this is why there is no data about pedophiles that doesn't come from offenders. I would like to comment on a few items of this discussion.

As to the question of whether it's a matter of body type or power dynamics. I think its both. I am more attracted to the "cute" type in older girls and am not into the big breast, long leg, heavy makeup glamorous type. Power dynamics is a big part of it though. When I was in puberty I had very low self esteem and girls my age really looked down on me. I would probably be into the whole DOM/SUB dynamic but I'm not into pain. It gets to close to a rape fantasy which really bothers me. I think this is why NAMBLA types like A Pedophile like to rationalize this desire. The thought of raping a kid is sickening. It would be nice to fantasize about some hot to trot lolita who really wants them. It's not going to happen though. You have to be able to separate fantasy from reality. If you are not into older girls like me, but are only attracted to kids, then you have to accept that there is no ethical way to ever be satisfied sexually. Sad but true.

@196: "The DSM IV definition of pedophilia is pretty telling: in order to be a pedophile, one must have either *acted* on one's desires *or* have been markedly distressed by them. Basically, it conflates the attraction with the crime of child abuse. If I do eventually come to some sort of peace with this, paradoxically, according to the definition, I'll no longer be a pedophile."

You need to remember that the purpose of the DSM is to classify and categorize mental illnesses and disorders. Over its development, the DSM has moved away from pathologizing behaviours or impulses that, while outside what is considered "normal" by mainstream society, do not cause harm to the individual or others. It is this trend that led to the removal of homosexuality as a diagnosis under DSM.

Medically speaking, a person who is sexual attracted to children but who neither acts on those desires nor is disturbed by them is not mentally ill or mentally disturbed. He's not hurting himself, he's not hurting others. He's just... different.

In other words, if you come to peace with your desires, and do not act on them, you won't fit into the DSM because you won't need to be diagnosed. It is a diagnostic, medical tool. It doesn't exist to categorize healthy people.