Neither is pedophilia if you don't act on it.
It is to the person suffering from the disorder, which is why there is now the push to get people to understand that it (the attraction itself) is not a choice and that the person who hasn't acted upon those urges is not a criminal.
All pedophiles that rape young children, especially 12 and under, may have various mental or personaility disorders, but all are criminals---and all should be put to death ASAP.
First off, the upper age is 13 for pedophilia, a minor point to be sure. Unless you are going by the legal definition and not the medical definition, then no, not all pedophiles rape children. That is the whole point of the current movement. To get help for those who have the disorder before they harm a child. Are you saying that someone who has kleptomania should be jailed for theft (of both hands cut off if you want to get old world) before they ever steal something?
Another thing to remember is that 2/3 rds of pedophile victims are girls---as men are responsible for virtually all acts of pedophilia. However, all men (or transexuals) who rape boys are by the very definition of the word, homosexuals.
Stats to back this up please. From a non-bias source, that is. Most pedophiles choose their victims by opportunity, holding, for the most part, no gender preference.
I would agree with this, but now I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and extend the question a bit?
Would creating/sharing/obtaining "kiddie porn" that is either animated or portrayed by adults made up to look like kids... in other words, no actual children were used at all... qualify as acting on it?
To further your line of questioning: Does Age Play qualify as being pedophillic in nature?
The irony to your question is that I see a lot of cartoon porn that deals with the children (Johnny Test, Bed 10, Bart Simpson, etc), but for the most part they are not classified as "kiddie porn". Not counting the ones that show these characters as grown up when they engage in the porn.
It's a disorder, but that doesn't mean they were born with it. Diabetes type 2 is a disorder caused by lifestyle.
I also believe they can't be cured.
Neither can many disorders such as depression. They can however be controlled and maintained.
Also, just because it's possible that they are not born with it doesn't mean that they are not born with it either. Just like you can develop diabetes from either "lifestyle" or genetics, so too could pedophilia develop by both vectors.
Simpleχity;1063880220 said:
An analogy. A fascination of fire is not a criminal offense. But acting upon that fascination (Arson) is indeed a criminal offense and rightfully so.
Close. However I can act upon that fascination of fire by becoming a pyrotechnic in Hollywood, creating fires and explosions legally. How can one act upon pedophilia legally?
No, sexual orientation has nothing to do with pedophilia. One's sexual orientation is in regards to the ADULT gender that one is attracted to. Children are not part of that equation. Research consistently shows that males who molest boys are overwhelmingly HETEROSEXUALS. You don't seem to understand that attraction to adults and attraction to children in this case is mutually exclusive.
So then, just to be clear, if an individual has no attractions sexually to any adult and is only sexually aroused by children then their orientation is asexual?
Of course it's a disorder if you want to do it.
It's a disorder AND a crime if you actually try to/do it.
Sounds like shrinks with too much time on their hands.
Not really. There are too many people who want to make it a crime, socially if not legally, just to have the thoughts and to ostracize the individual instead of allowing them to get help.
The options hint that pedophilia can either be a disorder or a crime. That is not the case. It is a disorder if they do not offend a child. Once they do then they are not above the law and will face penalties when caught.
It is indeed the case of the two being separate. Granted that most times, if the crime is actually committed, then the disorder is present. However, just like male on male rape can occur with the perpetrator having no sexual attraction to the gender of the victim, so too might an individual rape a child with no sexual attraction to them. Legally the perpetrator has committed pedophilia, but is not actually a pedophile since (s)he is not actually sexually attracted to children.
I don't think it's that simple. Many who are abused never repeat the cycle, nor do they have any inclination whatsoever. This suggest... as a possibility, not a certainty... that those who do are 'born that way'.
Not necessarily. We also talk about how those who are victims of physical/verbal abuse also perpetuate the cycle, yet not all of them continue the abuse either. As to whether one continues a cycle of whatever type of abuse or not, probably falls into the same category as many other issues; it can be genetic based, "environmental" based or both. It might well be that some are just more resilient than others.
Its not pedophilia unless its acted upon.
It doesn't fall under the legal definition of pedophilia unless acted upon. The attraction alone is enough to fall under the medical definition. The two do not automatically align.
There is a way to eliminate child molesters from society, or at least to cut back on the incidence of it dramatically. Think about it: An armed robber, even after he's payed his debt to society, is not allowed to have a gun. He can still get one illegally, of course, but he's risking going back to jail.
A pedophile, in contrast, can not get his weapon back once it's been removed, so he's no longer a threat to anyone.
Just remove their weapons after the first offense. Problem solved.
Wow! the illogic there is astounding. Granted I'm going off of pure memory here, but I recall some story about a guy who had a "bobbit" type encounter and couldn't get his reattached. Yet he still went on to rape women, albeit without his own member. Rape and sexual assault do not require a penis to occur. I could rape a woman with a beer bottle (another incident I am recalling) without ever taking my pants off or even opening the fly. Additionally what weapon would you remove from the female pedophile?
You don't think a young boy discovering that he is attracted to other young boys causes distress?
I've known young boys whose sudden attraction to girls have caused them distress. We have all kinds of things that cause us distress. The question is whether the basis of that distress is factual or created. Being distressed over actions that can harm another is a factual distress. Being distressed over actions that do not actually harm another is created.