thelastpsychiatrist.com - A Primer on Pedophilia. Adnotated.

This is the most important part: most pedophiles aren't sexually attracted to kids.

Like most other terms used in psychiatry and politics, the meaning appears to be self-evident, but it's actually wrong. Other examples include "insane," "antisocial" (it means criminal), and "inflammable." ("Inflammable means flammable? What a country!"ⁱ)

Pedophile had originally been divided into two groups, fixated and regressed. Interestingly, even these terms don't mean what they look like they mean. They don't describe what kind of kid the pedophile likes; they describe why he is a pedophile.

Fixated pedophiles are fixed in a certain developmental stage, and are exclusively attracted to kids.
Regressed pedophiles, using the original definition, prefer adults but, if stressed, will regress to an earlier developmental stage; this regression leads them to prefer children. The regressed pedophile likes kids because he himself has "become" a kid (more technically: he regresses to a pregenital sexuality, which finds its satisfaction in oral (e.g. masturbation, fetishism) or analⁱⁱ impulses (e.g. sadomasochism) and its naturalⁱⁱⁱ compatriot, the child.)

The terms homosexual and heterosexual apply to the primary object choice, not necessarily the sex of the victim (e.g. "heterosexual molester of boys.") Fixated pedophiles tend to be (i.e. think of themselves as) homosexual, and regressed (think of themselves as) heterosexual^iv.

But the easiest way, and most forensically useful way, is to simply describe pedophiles according to their sexual object preference: Fixated pedophiles are true pedophiles, they are only sexually aroused by kids.^v Opportunistic (regressed) pedophiles would rather have a hot 25 year old, but will take the best offer. Regressed pedophiles don't think they are pedophiles.^vi

Remember, whether they are homosexual or not isn't the differentiating factor (e.g. male homosexual regressed pedophiles prefer adult men but would settle for a kid. Heterosexual fixated pedophiles prefer kids.)

An example of the fantasy life of each is illustrative: the fixated pedophile might be married, but will take a feature of the adult and "see" it as child like.^vii Maybe the slope of the calf, the hair style, etc. Fetishism is also important, and there is a clear (to the pedophile, not to anyone else) direct link to children (a type of cloth or pattern; sounds such as bells, crowds; language or words, etc.)^viii

The regressed, or opportunistic, pedophile does the opposite: "I know she's only 13, but have you seen her ass?!"^ix

So now you can see why all of our attempts at catching pedophiles before they offend are doomed to absolute failure: they're everywhere.^x I know no one will admit this, but remember how hot you thought Britney Spears was in the original video "Hit Me Baby One More Time?" Guess what. You're a pedophile.^xi You say, "but I'd never act on it." Well, you say a lot of things.^xii

But that's the crux, of course: desire and action are very different things, and, arguably are controlled by entirely different parts of the brain, or personality factors, or superego departments.^xiii Not a day goes by I don't want to plasma gun 50 people I meet. But, so far body count = 0. This is why we can only be judged on our behaviors^xiv, not our thoughts (though a person must judge himself on his thoughts.)^xv

You don't know what a person is capable of until they are presented with the temptation, so I'm saying we shouldn't tempt them.^xvi The problem with opportunistic pedophilia is that it is opportunistic, not pedophilia. The goal isn't the child; it's ejaculation. And you simply don't know where a person's "line in the sand" for ejaculation is. At what point do they say, "this is probably not right?"^xvii Not: "this is wrong," that's usually easy to describe. Probably wrong. 16? 14 if they're famous? 12 if you're in Thailand?^xviii

The guy on the IM or chat who gets a 14 year old girl to meet him at the pier -- he's a "regressed pedophile." He would have liked her to have been a 25 year old NFL cheerleader; but, let's face it, a 25 year old NFL cheerleader would sooner swallow her own eye than hook up with this freak, and he knows it. So he bypasses her ("they're all sluts") and cons a 14 year old. It's no surprise that 75% of heterosexual pedophiles described their offenses as "compensation."^xix

Fixated pedophiles are sometimes described as "child centered." In fact, they see themselves as the peers of the child, and prefer to interact with the child on its level^xx (while regressed pedophiles try to elevate the interaction with the kid to adult level.)^xxi They're not in it "for the sex" but for the emotional connection.^xxii For the regressed, the sex is the whole point. And here's your forensic problem: a regressed pedophile kidnaps a kid to have sex with. Once done, well, anything can happen. If the kid "liked it," (maybe defined as "didn't put up too much of a fight"^xxiii) there's a good chance they'll meet again. But if the kid didn't like it... A fixated pedophile kidnaps a kid to -- live with. That fantasy rarely gets realized (kid likely doesn't want to move in) and violence can therefore occur.^xxiv But appreciate the difference: for a regressed pedophile, the violence is part of the offense. For the fixated, violence is secondary or utilitarian.^xxv

I can already hear the screaming objections.^xxvi Look, I'm not trying to defend anyone, I'm trying to explain the offenses, the thinking. In simple terms, your child is a billion times more at risk from "pedophilia" with an adult they know (30%^xxvii of victims have known their attacker for a full year prior to the offense), who is already married with kids of his own that he has not molested^xxviii, then they are from the registered pedophile who lives in your city who was hoarding child porn in his mom's basement. I know it sounds cooler and more self-righteous to rail against the pedophile than to worry about your (weak-minded) social contacts, because you think you know them, and especially since they outnumber you. By a lot.

You say, "but certainly not everyone is a pedophile, there must be something specifically different about them?" Or, if you work for the Supreme Court: "there must be some mental abnormality which is properly the domain of medicine?"

No. Not in a way that's useful.^xxix For example, a very recent MRI study of fixated pedophiles vs. controls found pedophiles had decreases in grey matter (smaller brains)^xxx, especially in certain brain regions (orbitofrontal, ventral striatum, limbic regions), and generally decreased intelligence. But before you see this as proof that pedophilia finds its origins in brain biology, the physical brain changes didn't predict anything you might expect (number of offenses, psychopathy, etc) -- but it did predict obsessiveness. In other words, this study found biological evidence of OCD spectrum pathology^xxxi, but not of pedophilia, per se. No, pedophilia isn't a disease with distinct physical pathology, and no, it isn't properly the domain of psychiatry.

I may write a "profile" of the pedophilic sex offender, and another post reviewing the developmental and biological studies so far. Or, I may just go have a drink (or 4.)^xxxii

1. English doesn't use either in- or im- as privative. Yes, i- is privative as such, so you can creatively compose irregular from regular ; but it does not promise anything, seeing how "gnorant" is not a word.

   Meanwhile in- and im- are actually still somewhat live rudiments of Latin construction, which is why to inflame a passion is "to make it take on the nature of flames" and to impound a car is to "take it to the pound", both roughly following ye olde Latin adverbial principle. Nevertheless, there's no "agine" even if there's [im]balming (though usually spelled with leading e, from a different layer of attempted systematization of the language), there's no "itation" even though [im]partial, and impact and impair (yes, I'm aware these don't trivially "sound" like they work, but what can I do, etymology's a bitch, and lived way longer than you have), and then no "munize" though [im]pending and [im]planting, and [im]printing and [im]peril and [im]pressing and [im]port and [im]prove and [im]pulse and [im]posture so following. Or if you prefer the in- side, [in]augural though no "eptness", [in]festing (from German) and [in]ebriate though no "dexing" and [in]ductor, [in]fatuate etcetera. Yes, it's true that on an even later attempt at systematizing the language in- privative was introduced, shown in eg indelible or incurious or ineffable or incurable -- but this is mostly Johnny-come-lately poofery rather than some sort of usable rule. [↩]

2. Note the implied hierarchy : oral is better (as in, more "satisfying") than anal. This "natural" situation is a correlate of the actual developmental evolution in humans, where the oral stage coming after the anal stage -- the implicit, subconscious logic being that regression being bad (in that it goes against the flow), the less you regress, the better. [↩]
3. Yes, but natural why ? [↩]
4. Note, again, the naturally implied hierarchy between heterosexuality and homosexuality : heterosexuality > homosexuality. [↩]
5. Technically, this would be a fetish, as stated.

   The correct definition would read "The sexuality of fixated (true) pedophiles is so utterly dysfunctional and fundamentally broken that the presence of an adult human strictly precludes its expression ; only in the company of children can their inner contortion take an ever-so-evanescently shape in this world."

   The age of the child-support then convincingly meshes into the theory -- as children develop, they eventually express preclusors of core elements of the pedophile's impossible mental world ; the nature of pedophilia as parasitic is neatly, fundamentally and convincingly exposed (sounds a lot like biomolecular chemistry, doesn't it -- once child grows enough to express any of the pedolithic enzymes, it's buh-bye to pedointerest) ; and the difference from mere fetishism is made evident, in that fetishism is a learned perisexual behaviour, where this is original organic dysfunction.

   On the basis of the foregoing, pedophilia in its true form is then necessarily a kind of schizophrenia. It even expresses in the right age range! [↩]

6. Nor are they, as a factual matter, because sociocultural norms are no part of any serious discussion of psychiatry. [↩]
7. This is batshit insane, for its suggestion that somehow suburbia's full of dudes in polo shirts playing golf on Wednesday, going to the office 9-5, and looking at Mrs-Robinson-from-two-houses-down's calves during the Sunday cul-de-sac BBQ "as if it were a child" thus therefore "pedophiles".

   Yes, pedophiles may be married, strictly speaking ; but no, your chances of mistaking one for "a regular person" are about the same as mistaking a psychopath, which is to say nil, or, if you prefer, entirely depend on just how fucking wilfully blind and outright imbecilically imperceptive you find yourself. I suppose if you systematically stick to the Seinfeld lifeguide, and absolutely never saying anything to anyone "so as not to possibly offend them" you could miss a pedophile. Then again, you could probably miss an elephant in a tutu, you're no part of this discussion. [↩]

8. Which directly paints fetishism as a confounding factor -- in fetishism, the fetishist's fetish is obvious to everyone else but not necessarily (nor usually) to the fetishist himself.

   This is also why all the "fetish lists" on retarded alt-sexuality wannabe websites "the user" is supposed to self-report are such fucking hysterical exercises in nonsense. If it were a matter of genuine fetishes (as opposed to a typically UStarded wigger-like appropriation phenomenon, "we have no culture so we'll pretend we're black this summer") they'd have to be sourced from the group, somehow, not self-reported. [↩]

9. And there is entirely nothing medically wrong with this. [↩]
10. No. They're imagined.

    And since we're on it : the same criminal conspiracy's "attempts to catch spree killers before they spree" are doomed to the exact same absolute failure : until they fix the actual problem -- specifically, that naggy old women aren't routinely convicted to the pillory on the simple say-so of respectable, powerful, rich men -- they will have to deal with its consequences. [↩]

11. Nonsense. Also, better example : What gets me hot. What, everyone was pedophiles back then, too ? Aww. [↩]
12. No, actually, you say : shut the fuck up before you have to spend the night in the supermarket parking lot. [↩]
13. Or not at all.

    How the fuck is this latest xtian bullshit supposed to work, you have two brains, and then they... what, they vote ? Forget about it, sheer maleficent nonsense. There's absolutely no difference between desire and action ; and attempts to introduce this difference result in typically UStardian impotence. [↩]

14. Yes, and you suck. [↩]
15. This is altogether dubious ; it is perhaps the case that strictly speaking it could be done, by an extremely competent practitioner -- nevertheless, a large reason why you fail in practice is that you keep trying at this, ineptly. [↩]
16. What the fuck nonsense is that! [↩]
17. As a general question -- never. The world either delivers or burns, that's what life even is in the first place. [↩]
18. To the specific point... Honestly, anything under 20 or so is extremely unlikely to work out, I have extremely complicated requirements. [↩]
19. I can see it -- except for the "pedophile" part. [↩]
20. With little exceptions here and there, though. It's not clean child emulation (and if it were / when it is it probably goes by unnoticed for lack of harm), it's a peculiar alien-child decoction. [↩]
21. Which happens to be exactly how children learn ever anything, in the first place. [↩]
22. Speak the words : ephebophiles are loser males, whereas actual pedophiles are exactly female. Right ?

    It's true, isn't it, the female mind run amuck, wanting to interact with the kid on its own terms and for the emotional connection, we finally have a passible cybernetic theory of actual pedophilia : much like males have nipples on their absent tits even if having no tits they haven't any use for the nipples, just so it's entirely possible males have mother brain mechanisms in their own brain -- it was cheaper to leave in place than to vpatch away, from the natural muntzing perspective, so there they stay. Male nipples never become a big deal, and similarily motherly brain chunks in male heads -- but if they ever do, if they cancerously manage to involve or subvert the rest of the mind... well ? [↩]

23. Or maybe defined as, genuinely liked it. [↩]
24. Nah, violence occurs directly and strictly because broken "legal" environment. Take the illustrative case of Gacy : dude wanted boys to suck his cock ; once the old woman chorus put him in jail for it, he simply proceeded to kill all the boys that sucked his cock, something he hadn't done previously.

    Carefull with that "law", Eugene -- the only thing you'll lop off with it is your own foot. [↩]

25. I confess I do not see this difference. [↩]
26. While I doubt he could hear any of the actual objections, nevertheless, please, don't be shy : there's a whole comments box below, and it's all for you! [↩]
27. This number is immensely skewed by the confounding factor of there being two main types of scenarios in which little boys get the wee wee chopped off / shoved in their butt / other unwelcome such. The vast majority of kiddy surprise buttseksers know the kid, it is part of their extended family ; a tiny minority of kiddy surprise buttseksers go on sprees, taking up youths from the bus terminal. These contribute a lot more to the victim count, in disproportion to their personal rarity. [↩]
28. And now we finally fall on the third group of "pedophiles", neither "true" nor "false" but familial. The grandfather who rubs the crotch of three generations of little girls, every night, for thirty+ years, is an entirely different pathology -- a point greatly illustrated by how little the changing of the guard of little girls bothers him. It barely registers! This is very much not how pedophilia works, and he very much isn't in it for any kind of emotional connection -- but he also isn't a loser male, nor into it for the sexual gratification at all. So what then ?

    Who knows... complex considerations of family and filiation, probably, an entirely different part of the brain broken but still churning, I have no idea. I've never actually seen one of these, I have seen sufficient reports, three or more hands away, to be reasonably persuaded they do in fact exist (a stance muchly bolstered by the fact that the theoretical infrastructure I employ readily permits their existence, I confess), but... [↩]

29. Rather : yes, but not in any way that's useful. [↩]
30. Still with this ? What is it, the 1860s again ? Fucking spare me. [↩]
31. I can readily see how limber thought process is a major bar to any kind of sexualization of children, either in representation or in practice -- specifically because children are so fucking similar. So yes, it's very very likely that anyone whose interactions with children would piss you off is also someone whose fixed thought process would piss you off. Not much of anything, but it's what it is. [↩]
32. There's no good way to put this into the putative interview format, sadly -- but if he ever does return, I imagine a discussion of pedophilia is de rigueur. [↩]