Thus, it seems useful to consider a lot of usual assumtions about pedophiles and pedosexual relations and to compare them with scientific results.
Nonsense. Falsification of scientific results is a serious accusation. That the pedophile has a motive to do such things does not prove that he does it. There are also a lot of other arguments against this statement.
Nonetheless, arguments are arguments and have to be considered, independent of the seriosity of their author.
See results about the harm caused by early sexual experiences on later life.
A very great influence on the possible harm has the consent of the child. In consensual relations, there is usually no harm. They often have a positive influence. In non-consensual relations, the harm depends on the severity of power misusage and of the power difference.
There are relevant differences between boys and girls. Boys are usually not harmed even in severe non-consensual contacts. The danger to be harmed is much greater for girls.
Officially, Pedophilia is considered as a mental disorder [Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders 1994, 302.2 Pedophilia].
I cannot aggree with such a classification. Especially, if we compare it with homophilia, which is currently no longer considered as sickness. Considering the sexual attraction of the pedophile, it is closer to the straight heterophile as the homophile. The difference is that homosexual behaviour is now much more accepted by the society compared with the pedophile. But a lack of acceptance is not sickness. Indeed, black skin is not a sickness even in a racist society.
Moreover, Pedophiliac desires are much more distributed as usually assumed. The majority of adults, women and men, experience some degree of erotic attraction in the widest sense towards children. But these feelings will be rejected, disclaimed and condemned with all the emotionalism of moral indignation.
A desire which is so common can not be considered as a sickness simply because it is not suppressed or of greater power for a given individual. (Mike)
The pedosexual version of the old fairy tale that homosexual experience leads to homosexuality.
See these statements about.
Pedophiliac desires are much more distributed as usually assumed. The majority of adults, women and men, experience some degree of erotic attraction in the widest sense towards children. But these feelings will be rejected, disclaimed and condemned with all the emotionalism of moral indignation.
In the pedophile, these feelings are only much more powerful as usual and not rejected.
Pedophile desire (independent of the gender of the child) is closer to the straight, heterosexual desire than straight homosexuality. Many boy-lovers, if they make sex with adults, prefer to make sex with women.
The Ancient Greek and other ethnographical examples show that pedosexual behaviour may be widely distributed.
Pedophiles are in all classes, of all ages, of all races, in all professions, and at all educational and intelligence levels.
In the majority of man/boy relations we have at least encouraging behaviour of the children.
This does not mean that the majority of children encourage sex. Instead, pedophiles find children which encourage him and have sex only with these children. Thus, even if the number of such children is small, children which will be involved in pedosexual relations usually show an encouraging behaviour.
See results about the initiation of sexual contacts and the behaviour of the child.
We can distinguish two subgroups of boy lovers:
Technics which give more satisfaction to the child are more often used as technics which satisfy the adult.
The severity of the contacts increases with the age of the child. What is usually done is nearly on the same level as in sex games with ages mates.
The results of the consideration what really happens show that the sexual activities are usually typical for the age and more often satisfy the child (f.e. in anal/oral sex, the boy is more often the inserter). This gives evidence that it is usually the child which decides which sexual technics will be used.
See also some statements about the power relation.
The investigation of the influence of pedosexual relations on later life show a significant difference between consensual and non-consensual relations.
Consensual relations have usually positive effects, non-consensual often cause harm.
A non-consensual relation is an obvious violation of a human right of the minor - the right of sexual self-determination. A consensual relation does not violate this right. Even if we restrict the rights of children to protect them from harm, this difference remains unchanged.
No.
If we do not assume that any pedosexual relation is a priori harmful, and exclude the problems caused by the negative relation of the society, a pedophile has to be considered simply as a variant of sexual orientation. The problem is analogical to the problem "Are homophiles sick?".
A very complicate question, I don't know a general answer. It seems analogical to therapy for homophile. Our information about this you can find here.
We have to study cases and statistics to find an answer to this question.
Remark that a negative answer does not automatically lead to the conclusion that AOC laws are bad, but removes only one of the most common arguments for such laws.
As a consequence, if we want to use different punishment for man/boy and man/girl relations, the punishment must be higher for man/girl relations. (Mike)
Given the above, and given the research about the harm that child abuse can wreak, one wonders why anyone even bothers to try to get said child-sex laws changed or even assert that they should be.
One problem is that the persecution of a consensual relation causes much more harm, also to the child, than the sex itself can cause.
Another problem are side effects: The pedophile tries to avoid persecution, but the "safer" possibilities are usually worse, as from "moral" point of view, as from point of view of AIDS distribution: compare a long-time loveful relation with many single anonymous experiences, or with prostitution, or with Third World sex tourism.
Another problem is that the usual penalties, especially in US, are in no relation to the real danger for the children. Doing real harm to a child, greater than any of the assumed harm of a sexual relation, but in a nonsexual way, leads to lower penalties than doing safe consensual sex, But for this sex is even not proven that it can cause harm in principle. And this is named justice?
Another problem of these laws is that in general sexual repression leads to harm of a child. In US, it seems even dangerous to touch a child. But a child which will never be caressed is a very poor child. It is prooved that sexual repression leads to aggression. (Mike)