The Three Terms
Pedophilia is the condition of being attracted to prepubescent children, while pedophilic disorder is the disorder that fits the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-V. Hebephilia is the condition of being attracted to pubescent children. Ephebophilia is the condition of being attracted to post-pubescent adolescents. It is possible for anyone who has at any time been attracted to those age groups to not meet the rest of the criteria for the disorder, and it is possible that those who have a primary attraction to one or more of those age groups do not meet the rest of the criteria for the disorder.
What Is Pedophilia? The Simple Answer:
There is no simple answer. I am sorry, if you were looking for one, that you came here to find one. But the topics of child sexual abuse, of sexual interest in children, and of child sexual exploitation are vast and complex. None of them can be explained, solved, or reacted to simply. Attempting to oversimplify these issues will likely result in more harm, not less. Popular Culture
Most people think that pedophilia is the sexual abuse of a child, and equate pedophiles with people who have molested or abused children. They lump people who have viewed child pornography into this group, even though the impact of viewing child pornography is more about creating both a psychological and popularity demand (similar to how posting on social media gets 'liked', and results in more posts, the download counts of child sexual exploitation material result in a sort of internet popularity). To most people, pedophilia is synonymous with the sexual abuse of a child. This is wrong. Most abusers do not have a sexual attraction to children, and most who have a sexual attraction to children do not sexually abuse children.
Why Is Usage Important?
It is easy to think that sexual abuse could never happen to anyone you know. The statistics make it extremely likely that you already do know someone who was affected by child sexual abuse, but it is extremely unlikely that they will talk about it. By portraying those who do sexually abuse as the filthy, monstrous, inhuman pedophile, we blind ourselves to the facts about child sexual abuse. To use the incorrect terminology, to dehumanize child abusers means that we reinforce the myths that enable abuse to happen. That extreme minority of sexual predators relies on the fact that most people believe the myths about abuse and not the facts. And those that have already abused a child rely on those myths to ensure that they will not face the consequences for their actions. Those myths mean that abusers can walk free, and that the child will never tell. Breaking those myths is what will help prevent sexual abuse.
An Attraction To Children
Some people automatically equate an attraction to children (children of any age) with pedophilia. Some people also automatically equate pedophilia with child sexual abuse. Neither of these associations are completely accurate. While someone may have occasional attractions to children, that would not automatically necessitate a pedophilia diagnosis according to the DSM-5 (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, Fifth Edition). One can find pedophilic disorder, or pedophilia, on page 697 (PDF page # 729). There are three diagnostic criteria for pedophilia: Recurrent, sexually arousing fantasies, or urges, or behaviors involving prepubescent children; The person with the disorder has acted upon them or they find the fantasies or urges to cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty; The person with the disorder is at least 16 years old and is at least 5 years older than the prepubescent child. There is also a note not to include someone in late adolescence in a sexual relationship with a 12-13 year old. That is just the criteria for pedophilic disorder.
There are other tidbits of useful information in the DSM-5, like the fact that pedophilia is treated as a different concept from pedophilic disorder, or the fact that a diagnosis in adolescence can be problematic due to the difficulty in determining what is curiosity and what is worthy of a diagnosis (thus the criteria of being 16 and 5 years older). They discuss the fact that pedophilic disorder can wax or wane with or without treatment due to differences in the distress of the person, social impairment, or likelihood to be sexual with a child, but that while the distress and social impairment might change, the sexual attraction to children (pedophilia) does not. In other words, pedophilia and its relatives, or the sexual attraction, functions as a sexual orientation that cannot be changed, cured, or treated.
In other words, pedophilia is a very specific thing that must meet very specific criteria to qualify as pedophilic disorder. It is possible to have the attractions and fantasies involving children without having the urge to act upon them. It is possible to be attracted to a child that is in the midst of puberty and not fit the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, because the child they are attracted to is not prepubescent. It is possible to be attracted to a particular age group of children without having distress or interpersonal difficulties and thus not fit the diagnostic criteria for a disorder.
In short, it is possible to have an attraction to children and have it not be worthy of the label "disorder". Having a disorder means that treatment and support are suggested to help manage the disorder and make the disorder less impactful. Having a disorder does not mean that someone is "damaged goods" or in any way deficient.
Medically And In Psychology
Medically and in psychology, pedophilia is a narrow and specific ongoing attraction to prepubescent children while hebephilia is a narrow and specific attraction to pubescent children and ephebophilia is a narrow and specific attraction to post-pubescent children. Popular usage of these terms, particularly pedophilia and pedophile, are not accurate to the understanding of doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists who specialize in paraphilias, which is a catch-all term for the variety of sexual disorders people can have. As a researcher will tell you, there is no clear line on which sorts of sexual interests warrant a diagnosable disorder and which are just unusual. Paraphilia, like anything within mental health subjects, is a vast subject with a lot of debate over concepts, how those concepts are labeled, and how those labels can bring unnecessary weight to the concept they are meant to describe.
For example, pedophilia brings a different response than saying "having an ongoing sexual attraction to children who have not hit puberty", just as "child rapist" and "sex offender" have different connotations and arouse different feelings. That is why most academics prefer to use the term paraphilia rather than the more common "sexual perversion" or "sexual deviance" that would be more recognizable. While I am not a researcher, I think there is a lot of merit to choosing terms and labels that both accurately describe the concept they attempt to illustrate. However, there does come a point at which certain labels that, while they may be more accurate, are just too much for the average person to comprehend or process. For example, trying to get everyone to use the more technically accurate "child sexual exploitation material" rather than "child pornography" is just something that will not catch on except in academia.
With all of those discussions aside, I think it is safe to conclude that when certain conditions are met, an attraction to prepubescent children meets the criteria for pedophilia and the person with the condition can be known as a pedophile. Such a person would have the disorder of pedophilia. Disorder Or Not?
A rather valid point is made about disorders: It is a stigmatizing and heavy word depending on who is using it and how, and who is hearing it and in what context. There is no universal understanding of what a disorder is (though, to that point, there is no universal understanding of most common words, and context, as always, plays a heavy role on how words are meant, perceived, and received), but I think we can generally say that a mental health disorder is something that warrants support and care so that someone with a disorder can live a life that is not as impacted by the disorder. Maybe this is just my perception, but I think that having a disorder is not a reflection of our choice to have it or not, but what someone with a disorder chooses to do about having it.
Words are always limited because of how they are perceived, and it is just not possible to be 100% accurate to the concept a word is meant to communicate. I think "disorder" is the word we have to describe a mental condition that causes interpersonal or personal difficulty and distress without automatically being negatively stigmatizing. There are some terms that will just never catch on in popular usage. While some people can waste time discussing what terms are more technically accurate and why, and what words best fit the concepts attempting to be communicated, I think those are discussions that will fly over the average person's head and bore most audiences. The trick in advocacy is coming up with the right words to use in the right order so that the wrong message is not conveyed, and so that an accurate picture is painted. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to do that in very few words.
With all of that said, pedophilia and its relatives, in general, should be considered a disorder in the vast majority of cases. Whether admitted by the person with the attraction or not, having such a stigmatized disorder automatically results in distress if one is aware of the stigma with which it is viewed by the majority of the world's population. While it is possible to have the attraction without having interpersonal difficulty or distress that would make it a disorder, those cases are likely rare because of the current climate and general attitude towards such an attraction, though the disorder seems to stem not from the attraction of itself, but the societal attitude and response to it and the internalized stigmas and beliefs that cause those difficulties.
Regarding the distinction between an orientation and a disorder, the DSM-5 states: "However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt,shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder."
Primary Prevention Tie-In
If you have followed this blog for any length of time, you know I harp on the fact that child sexual abuse is not often perpetrated by people with attractions to children, and that people with attractions to children do not often sexually abuse children. This distinction is important because it serves to educate people on the reality of who sexually abuses children and the factors that lead them to engaging in behaviors that have serious effects on children. Without knowing who abuses children and why, child sexual abuse cannot be prevented.
I recently joined Twitter to grow my ability to advocate and share resources, and I have had several interactions with Ender Wiggin, who wrote an outstanding article about what it is like to grow up with pedophilia and why pedophiles do - and do not - need help. This article was originally found here. Ender Wiggin has also written other articles on the topic of pedophilia.
The only thing I would add to this story is that there are organizations that offer expert guidance and know exactly who to connect a pedophile in your area to the help that they need, and have sex-specific training to know when someone really is a risk to children and when they are not, regardless of mandatory reporting. If you live in Germany, they have a program for that also. There is also an online support system available as well that Ender also mentions.
I would add that I was treated by a therapist who is a member of the referral link, and I can personally vouch for them. While they may refer a pedophile to sex offender treatment regardless of whether they have had contact with a child, that treatment will be tailored to the individual's needs. Within this organization, their goal is to come up with an individual plan for someone to stay safe and address their ongoing mental health needs. Their goal is not to stigmatize, report, or abuse their position: It is to identify the risks, needs, and beliefs that Ender mentions so that one can know how to respond to them and manage them.
But enough of my introduction. Here is his story:
Help!
What help do pedophiles need?
One of the most common things us pedophiles get told by people online — other than “kill yourself” — is “get help!” Of course, by that they mean to imply that every pedophile needs psychiatric or psychological help or treatment to either a) be “cured” of our terrible “illness” or b) to help us “manage” our condition and resist our “urges” and not abuse a child.
The former comes from the misunderstood idea that pedophilia is a “disease” that can somehow be “cured”. While it is true that pedophilia is currently regarded as a mental disorder, there are many nuances and the same could be said not that long ago about homosexuality. In addition, even if considered a disorder, it is widely accepted by the people that research pedophilia and treat pedophiles that the condition of being sexually attracted to children is impossible to change or “cure”. It is not the purpose of this post to explore this though, I will do so shortly in a dedicated post.
The latter is simply based on biased and prejudiced views and a misunderstanding of pedophilia as a condition. The reality is that the only pedophiles people hear about are those that have made it to the news headlines for having molested children or been caught producing, distributing or downloading child pornography, so it is only natural for the public to believe that all pedophiles indulge in one or more of those things and only through a very close monitoring can they be persuaded or prevented from doing so. In their view, a pedophile has to be constantly supervised or otherwise they are a threat to every child they encounter, which is simply ridiculous.
Others believe all pedophiles should be chemically (if not physically) castrated — given testosterone-reducing or otherwise libido-reducing medication — which is apparently the only way they believe a pedophile is able to refrain from acting on our attraction. The reality is quite different though. I will address child pornography in other posts in the future, but when it comes to actually sexually molesting children, it is generally as simple as knowing that it is wrong and that there is a very high risk of causing the child severe harmfor a pedophile to refrain from ever doing so. We are not by definition monsters who wish to inflict pain and suffering onto others in order to achieve our own pleasure. We can be as empathetic as anyone and the desire to not cause harm is more than enough for the majority of us to abstain from acting on our attractions. Everyone is in control of their own actions at all times, and if anyone doubts their ability to refrain from acting on their attractions it is a self-inflicted doubt caused by internalizing the prevailing narrative that all pedophiles are bound to molest a child sooner or later, but not because pedophilia somehow impairs one’s self-restraint, because it just doesn’t. As I explained in my article about sexual fantasies, pedophilia is not a compulsion or an irresistible urge, and the notion that it is so is a misguided one based on prejudice and stigma.
Do pedophiles need therapy?
If the attraction to children cannot be made to disappear through therapy, do pedophiles need therapy at all? Like I mentioned above, many pedophiles have self-inflicted doubts about their ability to refrain from acting on their attractions because they have internalized the message that they are destined to do so at some point in their lives. These deeply internalized beliefs are often accompanied by feelings of desperation and self-loathing, and often even suicidal feelings. Pedophiles have no inherent desire to harm children, and the thought that they will inevitably harm one is distressing to the core. In addition, there is a very real risk that these beliefs turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is not something I’m simply making up on the spot; it’s widely acknowledged by psychologists. In this article you can read about how your beliefs about yourself that you have internalized since childhood have a very important impact on your behavior. I’ll quote here just one sentence, which I think sums it up pretty nicely:
«Your beliefs about yourself are like an invisible, underlying script from which you unknowingly act out your life.»
Allowing pedophiles self-confidence is key in preventing child sexual abuse
If you insist on perpetuating the false narrative that pedophiles are nothing more than ticking time bombs waiting to explode, you are actually hindering pedophiles’ ability to refrain from acting out on their attractions. Of course some people are more susceptible to those external messages than others, and many are able to realize they are not true and overcome their self-inflicted doubt. But sometimes it takes time, and support. Peer support through online forums like Virtuous Pedophiles can be extremely important, and I read testimonies daily about how the support received there has helped improve a pedophile’s self-confidence in their commitment to never offend. That is not always enough, however, and some pedophiles would greatly benefit from professional mental health support from a good psychologist or psychiatrist, in order to overcome the deeply internalized belief that they will inevitably offend.
In addition, you have to understand what it is like to grow up and realize you are sexually attracted to children. The loneliness, the isolation, the fear that someone will discover this part about you, the knowledge that most people out there would hate you if they knew… these are things many people growing up with more mainstream but still unconventional sexual orientations know very well, and should at least be sympathetic to what it’s like. As I mentioned in one of my first articles, the suicide rates among LGBT teens are four to six times higher than among the general population of teenagers. The fear that the people that are supposed to love you unconditionally — such as your parents and your close friends — would reject you can be the most crippling for a young person. Furthermore, pedophiles face the messages they hear and read in the news and on the internet about how they are the scum of the earth, less than human and deserve to be slaughtered painfully and mercilessly, or physically castrated. Being exposed to these can be incredibly disheartening, and it can take a long time to grow the skin to be able to realize they’re only based on ignorance and prejudice, and that they can be dismissed as the product of blind hatred and little rational thought.
For all these reasons, many pedophiles develop severe depression, anxiety disorders, paranoia and live in a state of constant distress which is not conducive to remaining non-offending. Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that pedophiles who offend often do so when they are at their lowest. Being in a healthy state of mind is also key in building that self-confidence I talked about earlier. That is not true just for child sexual abuse though, anyone that knows anything about crime prevention will tell you the same thing about any other crime.
Do pedophiles have access to therapy?
People often say that there’s nothing stopping pedophiles from going to a therapist, but the reality is not so simple. Many countries have bought into the incorrect assumption that all pedophiles eventually molest, and have enacted mandatory reporting laws. If someone admits to a licensed therapist that they are attracted to children, they could automatically be deemed a risk and be reported to the authorities, even if they have never done anything wrong in their entire lives. In theory, therapists should only report if the pedophile is admitting to be actively committing abuse or if there is a clear risk for a specific child. The latter, though, is subjective enough that it could spell disaster for any pedophile that has contact with children in their life in any capacity — whether has his own children (like many of us do) or works with children in any way, such as being a teacher, a youth coach, a camp counselor, etc. Additionally, imagine if someone disclosed their attractions to a therapist, the therapist decided not to report him and the individual ended up sexually abusing a child. The consequences for the therapist would be devastating, and therefore they’re much rather be trigger-happy when it comes to reporting than favor patient-doctor confidentiality. Last but not least, although that is thankfully not something too widespread, therapists are human beings often subject to the same prejudices as everyone else, and some genuinely believe the ticking time bomb theory, and that it is right to report a pedophile to the authorities even if they haven’t actually done anything wrong. Since they will face no legal consequences for violating confidentiality, they are free to report that filthy pedo without fear of losing their license.
I have read horror stories of what happened to pedophiles that had never committed a crime or harmed anyone and confided in a mental health professional, only to be reported and have their lives turned upside down, being outed to their friends and relatives, being removed from their homes and essentially affecting their lives in a very negative way. Thankfully, many other pedophiles have found non-judgmental and sympathetic therapists that have been able to help them overcome their depression and self-hatred, and build up their self-confidence. Knowing the risks involved in even admitting your attractions to a therapist, most pedophiles simply never go see one, and even more so those who have the highest levels of self-doubt about their ability to refrain from acting, since they would be the most likely to be reported. So far from helping to protect children, these mandatory reporting laws are deterring the pedophiles that feel like they need the support not to offend the most from getting it. It is as backwards and counterproductive as it could possibly be.
The only way out of this situation is for the public — and over time the legislators — to really understand pedophilia. Refusing to discuss the topic, shoving it under the rug, does nothing to prevent child sexual abuse. The only way forward is to destigmatize the condition of being attracted to children—but never the action of having sex with children — and allow pedophiles to freely, and without fear, seek the help that they so much desire us to get. And that’s why I’m here, doing what I do. In hopes that one day people will not equate pedophile with monster or ticking time bomb, and those of us who feel like we need access to mental health support, either to build that self-confidence in our ability to never harm a child or simply to learn to accept ourselves as decent human beings whose attractions don’t make us evil, can do so without fear. Perhaps that day we will also be able to confide in our closest relatives and friends, because knowing that people accept you for who you are, without you having to hide such an important part of yourself is also incredibly valuable and works wonders in improving you self-esteem and, with it, your self-confidence.
You can help
In summary, I would say that indeed yes, pedophiles need help, just probably not the kind of help you would assume, or for the reasons you may think. And the great thing is that you can actually help.
And you don’t have to be an expert to be able to help. Here are some very simple things you can do:
Care about your fellow human being who did not choose to feel what he feels and only wishes to live his life peacefully without causing anyone harm.
Consider that perhaps you don’t know all the facts about pedophilia and child sexual abuse. That maybe what you’ve been told to be true, what you’ve read in the media or heard in the news, isn’t exactly the way it is portrayed.
Realize that perhaps it is worth listening to the perspective of a pedophile who is committed to never harming a child, that we actually deserve to have our voices heard.
Understand that pedophile and child molester are not one and the same, and that the former doesn’t automatically lead to the latter.
Challenge yourself, your prejudices and those of the people you encounter perpetuating the stigma of pedophilia, and contributing to the status quothat is preventing those you so much desire to “get help” from doing so.
By doing these simple things you will be helping pedophiles live happier and more fulfilling lives, confident that they will never act on their attractions. And by doing that you will be helping to reduce child sexual abuse, and I can’t think of a more important reason for you to realize that it is in your hand to make a change. While it is true that pedophiles account for a minority of sexual offenders against children, a single child spared from abuse is already a victory. Wouldn’t you agree?
SORNA, the acronym for the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (a catch-all term used to describe the multiple laws that created and expanded registration, and created community notification), is a topic of much contention. Many people discuss it with varying perspectives. I often, when I comment on news articles to inform people of the facts surrounding these issues, discuss recidivism rates of sex offenders and the proportion of new sex offenses committed by first-time offenders to those on the registry. That information is also linked at the side of this blog. But why is it important?
Recidivism: What is it, what does it mean, and why is it important?
Recidivism, which is the criminal justice term for re-offending, is a device that typically refers to someone who has previously been arrested for a crime being arrested again for another crime. It does not usually refer to a reconviction, but a rearrest. As such, it is not a completely accurate measurement because it would ballpark a slightly higher number. After all, some who are arrested are not convicted. On the topic of sexual offenses, its typical inaccuracy should theoretically be compensated for because of underreporting.
There are obvious flaws to using recidivism data to accurately state how many criminals are arrested for a new crime- underreporting and the fact that the data only studies rearrests, for example. However, it is likely to be the most accurate tool for the purpose that it serves, which is to get a general understanding of how often criminals engage in further delinquency. It serves as an important tool to measure whether or not people convicted of certain crimes repeat those certain crimes, other crimes, so that corrections departments can respond accordingly.
There are a variety of studies that have been done on sex offender recidivism. The metastudy linked on the side of this blog found a sexual recidivism rate of 13%, while other meta-analyses have found 11.5%. The United States Justice Department found a 5% recidivism rate in 2002 and a 13% recidivism rate in 2012. Who commits crimes? Why is that important?
SORNA is essentially based on the idea that sex offenders generally do commit further sex crimes, and that those arrested for new sex crimes are registered sex offenders. The original concept of sex offender registration was that by making law enforcement aware of who sex offenders are, they have tools to investigate other sex crimes, while the concept behind notification (registration is only visible to law enforcement while notification is visible to the public) is that the public can protect themselves against sex offenders by knowing who they are.
Thus, it is vitally important to the effectiveness of SORNA to know who commits new sex crimes. Are they in fact sex offenders? No. One study from New York tells us that 95% of new sex crimes are committed by first-time offenders. In criminal justice, a first-time offender is someone new to the criminal justice system. So their finding means that 5% of registered sex offenders commit new sex crimes. Connection: What do those numbers mean for SORNA?
If 86% of sex offenders do not repeat their crimes, and 95% of new sex crimes are committed by first-time offenders, then it means that SORNA's effectiveness is extremely limited to affecting a much smaller portion of sex offenders. If Karl Hanson's meta-analyses on the subject are to be believed, and their studies firmly establish that they do know what they are doing, then we have reliable and accurate risk-assessment tools to know when a sex offender is at high risk for reoffending, and when they are not. However, SORNA on the federal level does not require the use of these assessments and treats every sex offender equally, as if they are all high-risk.
Obviously, this is a problem because it means tax money is being spent to monitor every single sex offender, when it is certain sex offenders who are in actual need of being monitored. It also means that the focus is on the wrong group of people: If 95% of new offenses are by new criminals, then the focus should not be on those who have committed sex offenses, but on those who are at risk of doing so. The focus, according to the raw numbers, should be on primary prevention and ensuring that those at risk do not commit a sexual crime.
The reason I use the 13% statistic and not the more-reliable 11.5% statistic is that recidivism rates, given underreporting, are low. Obviously, the bigger the sample pool, the more reliable the statistic because the more the sample represents the group of people it is sampling from. Some have accused me of using biased data: I would venture a guess that recidivism rates on this subject are indeed higher than those found in studies. However, short of every victim reporting it every single time, which is unrealistic for many reasons, they are the best data that is available.
