Politics Magazine

Is Sexual Attraction To Minors “Normal” Among Males?

Posted on the 18 July 2013 by Calvinthedog

That is a very disturbing question, and this is a very disturbing question. A number of years ago, I would have answered a resounding “No!” to that question. Nevertheless, recent research shows that it is more or less normal for adult males to be sexually attracted to female children on some level or another. Now that doesn’t mean it is ok for them to act on those feelings and have sex with the girl.

It’s against the law, and nowadays in many cases, the girl is harmed by this interaction. In some cases she is physically harmed, and in in many more cases, she is psychologically harmed. The reasons for the psychological harm are up in the air – no one knows what causes them. Perhaps it is automatically harmful for an adult to have sex with a child. This is dubious because many children decide that they were not harmed by this behavior.

The other alternative is that society’s reaction is what harms the child. The debate is very complex, and there are no easy answers, but the bottom line is that kids get hurt by adults messing with them sexually. So don’t do it! If you care about kids at all, don’t mess with them sexually. It’s against the law, you may well get caught, and in many cases, the kid may well get hurt.

The harm is not limited to childhood but often extends far into adulthood. In fact, there may even be physical changes to the brains of children who have been sexually abused.

Nevertheless, the three studies I have looked at show that attraction to children is fairly normal for adult males. I don’t have the studies with me right now as I found them in my research but you should be able to find them if you go online.

Study 1: Study 1 showed that adult males have a maximal reaction to females aged 16+ and then a rapidly descending reaction to female minors all the way down to age 7, where the curve ended. This implies that male reaction to females aged 7-15 on rapidly descending curve with a lower reaction to matures, is simply normal. That doesn’t mean it is ok to act on such desires. It just means it is ok to feel that way. It’s nothing to worry about!

Study 2: Study 2 showed that 100% of adult males reacted to females aged 17+ and 90% of males reacted to females aged 2-16 on a lower level than their reaction to matures. Therefore, reaction to minors was normal, but on a lower level than matures, for 90% of males.

Study 3: This study was the most disturbing, but I suppose it is correct. It showed that all adult males had a maximal reaction to females aged 13+. In addition, males showed a reaction to female minors aged 2-12 but at a lower level. The most shocking figure was that 26% of males showed reaction to females aged 2-12 at an equivalent to even higher level than they reacted to females aged 13+.

Therefore, 26% of adult males showed a strong sexual reaction to females aged 2-12. That is stunning, but I assume the study is correct. The problem is that this study indicates that up to 26% of all males could possibly be diagnosed with DSM-5 pedophilia if they were bothered by their minor attractions. That makes no sense, and it shows that the criteria for DSM-5 pedophilia are irrational.

If 26% of all adult males have strong reactions to female children, why don’t they molest them? Probably because they think it is wrong and they have strong reactions to female matures at the same time. They simply shrug off their attractions to female minors as a feeling that will get them in legal trouble and maybe hurt the girl, and they choose not to act on them, which is the proper and legally sanctioned reaction. Thoughts are thoughts and actions are actions. You can think about anything you want to. Thoughts are not illegal yet.

How do these 26% of all males who react strongly to female children differ from true pedophiles. The true pedophile is pretty much only attracted to female children. They have been this way since childhood or at the latest puberty. The orientation cannot develop after age 14. They have a maximal attraction to minors and a minimal to zero attraction to matures of adults. The vast majority of this 26% of all males above, while they react strongly to female children, also have extremely strong reactions to female matures or adults. Therefore their sexual needs can be easily satisfied by sex with a mature to adult female.

Pedophiles are dangerous, unfortunately, because they have a maximal reaction to children and a minimal to zero reaction to matures or adults. Therefore, in order to satisfy their sexual needs, in many cases, pedophiles may feel the need to break the law. They may acquire child pornography for masturbatory desires, and they in many cases, they molest children in order to fulfill their sexual needs.

While many can go long periods without molesting children, long term studies show that after 25 year followup, 50% of pedophiles have re-offended against children, so the recidivism rate is quite high. Nevertheless, the therapy of pedophiles has shown good results. Pedophiles who go through extensive therapy are much less likely to re-offend than those who do not.

Since the criteria for DSM-5 are nonsense, what are better criteria. I think we need to go all the way back to DSM-2 and DSM-3 where pedophilia was defined as a primary or exclusive preference for children with little or no reaction to mature persons.

The ever-growing expansion of DSM pedophilia has been driven by the desire to label child molesters with a mental disorder so we can sock them away in mental hospitals forever as criminals. That child molesters are criminals is beyond doubt. That the majority of them are mentally ill is very much up in the air and is probably not true. Clinicians should not give in to the state project to classify an ever-growing population of criminals as mentally ill so as to keep them locked far beyond their terms, possibly forever. This is a mass incarceration project with dubious psychiatric validity and clinicians should not be a party to such politically driven projects that are not validated by empirical psychological science.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog