I’m just going to go out and say this: paedophiles are humans. Now before you come at my throat or awaken that SJW within you, give me a chance to explain. Scientifically.
I have been researching the neurobiology and psychology of paedophilia for a couple of years now. It was during this period that, among other things, I came across personal and confessional blogs run by paedophiles. But more on those later. First, let me briefly elucidate some research findings, with a mention to their inconsistencies and drawbacks.
Studies on paedophilia is an expanding field. Research till date has been largely inconclusive. The main reason for this is faulty methods. There are two most common problems encountered by scientists:
Inconsistency in Subjects
Now that’s a given. There are so many variations of paedophilia. And not every paedophile is equally willing to participate. This is why it becomes difficult to give an accurate diagnosis.
It is of great importance for clinical diagnosis whether or not an erotic preference for the body scheme of children on the fantasy-level exists. There is a high chance that this information would be given voluntarily by self-referred, self-motivated pedophilic men, but less likely by those who are already involved with the legal system (probation etc.).
[Reference: The Neurobiology and Psychology of Pedophilia: Recent Advances and Challenges]
Also, it is essential that paedophiles not be confused with child sex offenders. Otherwise, study findings will be biased and focus on only one subtype within a broad spectrum. It will be like carrying out a study with a 100 ISIS members, and then concluding that all Muslims are terrorists.
Unethical Methods
As Tabea Cornel pointed out in her paper The Neuroscience of Pedophilia, several studies have used visual stimuli in the past to monitor the arousal of subjects. This is a) highly immoral, and b) illegal. Methods other than child pornography need to be developed and all studies should come from verified sources. Cornel suggests an alternative – non-visual stimuli, such as contextual stories. In her words:
This would protect the children from being instrumentalized, but most likely, and unfortunately, not the pedophilic subjects from being thrown back into desires that they are trying to overcome.
It is clear from these drawbacks that while efforts are being made, unanimous success is yet to see the light of day.
The Two Theories
Broadly speaking, scientists hold two distinct opinions about the etiology of paedophilia.
Paedophilia as a Disorder
The DSM-IV defined paedophilia as: “a chronic condition with high rates of recidivism.” This is, in short, a very narrow definition. In the fifth edition of the DSM, the term was broadened, and the definition included that: “pedophilic desires that do not cause distress to the affected individual and do not lead to sexual offenses against children are non-pathological.”
About 0.5%-1% of adult males are estimated to suffer from paedophilia. History of sexual abuse, genetics and neuro-developmental problems are said to play a role in the development of the disorder. Other visible characteristics may include diminished intelligence, left-handedness, and a small stature. Multi-faceted emotional and cognitive impairments have also been determined as causes by many publications.
Studies over the past century claim that the disorder has a dispositional component, and that several brain impairments or psychiatric disorders can cause overt manifestations of paedophilia. Some of these impairments include brain tumors, certain types of dementia, and other neuro-degenerative diseases.
Paedophilia as a Sexual Preference
This is a very convincing argument put forward by a school of thought that believes paedophilia is not an illness, but a sexual preference, like homosexuality. While the IMO-10 lists paedophilia under “Disorders of Sexual Preference“, it is still classified as a ‘disorder’. Now, before the conservative in you disregards everything in this theory, let me highlight the neurological explanation.
Brain areas commonly associated with paedophilic desire tend to have a lot of overlaps with those associated with other kinds of arousal. The areas that light up are more or less the same, hence this theory refuses to acknowledge paedophilia as a psycho-pathological disorder.
Another strong point put forward is that psychiatry is a constantly evolving science. Even homosexuality was listed as a disorder in the DSM, up until a few years ago. Thus, paedophilia has a good chance of being proved as a sexual preference with further scientific advancements. Ender Wiggin, a self-confessed and non-offending paedophile also points out a specific portion of the DSM-V that says: “potentially associated conditions in the form of shame, guilt, distress, interpersonal difficulties or acting out on the attraction by sexually abusing a child …constitutes pedophilic disorder. Therefore, if none of these conditions are present, pedophilia is described as a sexual orientation, and there is no pedophilic disorder.”
I personally support this statement, having followed several online blogs and communities of non-offending paedophiles over two years. Of these, my most favourite are Christian Pedophile – Finding a Way and Virtuous Pedophiles.
In Conclusion
It is evident from these theories and findings that while sexual crimes against children are absolutely inexcusable, ostracizing paedophiles is maybe not the right way to go. It is important for the public to identify the differences between a predator and a paedophile. Because if the stigma was reduced, maybe more people would be willing to take up studies in this field. And in the end, both the paedophiles and other members of the society would be able to find effective ways to handle this questionable disorder/sexuality.
Image Sources: Wikimedia, CBC Canada, Pixabay.
