Pedophile...why?

[cally]

Why do humans have sexual attraction to children? It doesn't make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint but it seems to be more common than most of us want to believe. It seems that 1/4 to 1/3 of adult males have some sexual attraction to children. One of the problems is that the definitions of pedophila lump all crimes into the same category yet there is a difference between sex with a 15 year old who claims he or she is 20 and sexual activity with a baby or toddler. I would like to see laws that punish based on more of a continuum.

Enslaving children for prostitution either is growing or becoming more public. There is a demand for this and I'm interested in any ideas on how to decrease the acceptance of this exploitation and make it socially taboo for to engage in any sexual acts with children.

From Wikipedia:

The extent to which pedophilia occurs is not known with any certainty. Some studies have concluded that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children <6>. A study by Hall et al. of Kent State University, for example, found that 32.5% of their sample — consisting of eighty adult males — exhibited sexual arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli. Further studies indicate that even men erotically fixated on adult females are generally prone to react sexually when exposed to nude female children. <7>

In 1989 Briere and Runtz conducted a study on 193 male undergraduate students concerning pedophilia. Of the sample, 21% acknowledged sexual attraction to some small children; 9% reported sexual fantasies involving children; 5% admitted masturbating to these fantasies; and 7% conceded some probability of actually having sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment.<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Extent_of_occurrence

Then I read the FBI behavioral analysis (parts of it)

The often forgotten piece in the puzzle of the sexual victimization of children
is acquaintance molestation. This seems to be the most difficult manifestation of
the problem for society and the law to face. People seem more willing to accept a
sinister stranger from a different location or father/stepfather from a different
socioeconomic background as a child molester than a clergy member, next-door
neighbor, law-enforcement officer, pediatrician, teacher, or volunteer with direct
access to children. The acquaintance molester, by definition, is one of us. He is not
just an external threat. We cannot easily distinguish him from us or identify him
by physical traits. These kinds of molesters have always existed, but society and
the criminal-justice system have been reluctant to accept the reality of these cases.
When such an offender is discovered in our midst, a common response has been
to just move him out of our midst, perform damage control, and then try to
forget about it. Sadly one of the main reasons that the criminal-justice system and
public were forced to confront the problem of acquaintance molestation was the
preponderance of lawsuits arising from the negligence of many prominent
organizations.

One of the unfortunate outcomes of society’s preference for the
“stranger-danger” concept has a direct impact on the investigation of many
acquaintance-exploitation cases. It is what I call, “say no, yell, and tell” guilt. This
is the result of societal attitudes and prevention programs that tell potential child
victims to avoid sexual abuse by saying no, yelling, and telling. This might work
with the stranger lurking behind a tree. Children who are seduced and actively
participate in their victimization, however, often feel guilty and blame themselves
because they did not do what they were “supposed” to do. These seduced and,
therefore, compliant victims may feel a need to sometimes describe their victimization
in more socially acceptable but inaccurate ways that relieve them of this
guilt. Except for child prostitution, most sexual-exploitation-of-children cases in
the United States involve acquaintance molesters who rarely use physical force
on their victims.

Another excerpt:

The second side involves understanding the child victims as human beings
with needs, wants, and desires. Child victims cannot be held to idealistic and
superhuman standards of behavior. Their frequent cooperation in their victimization
must be viewed as an understandable human characteristic that should
have no criminal-justice significance. In theory the law recognizes their developmental
limitations and affords them with special protection. The repeated use,
however, of terms such as “rape,” “sexual violence,” “assault,” “attack,” “sexually
violent predator,” and “unwanted sexual activity,” when discussing or inquiring
about the sexual exploitation of children assumes or implies in the minds of many
that all child victims resist sexual advances by adults and are then overpowered
by coercion, threats, weapons, or physical force. Although cases with these
elements certainly exist, when adults and children have sex, lack of “consent” can
exist simply because the child is legally incapable of giving consent. Whether or
not the child resisted, said no, and was overpowered are, therefore, not necessarily
elements in determining if a crime has occurred. Understanding this is
especially problematic for the public (i.e., potential jurors) and professionals (i.e.,
physicians, therapists) who lack specialized training in criminal law and may not
rely on strict legal analysis.
Both halves of this form of sexual exploitation of children must be
recognized, understood, and addressed if these cases are going to be effectively
investigated and prosecuted. The sad reality is, however, that such behavior does
have significance in the perception of society and “real world” of the courtroom.
Society’s lack of understanding and acceptance of the reality of acquaintance
molestation and exploitation of children often results in
�� failure to disclose and even denial of victimization
�� incomplete, inaccurate, distorted disclosures when they do happen
�� lifetime of victim shame, embarrassment, and guilt
�� offenders with numerous victims over an extended period of time
�� ineffective prevention programs that also make the first four problems
even worse

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

Here's a description of why pedophiles desire children. (It's a 160 page report so this barely skims to surface of the analysis.):

Situational-type sex offenders victimizing children do not have a true sexual
preference for children. They may molest them, however, for a wide variety of
situational reasons. They are more likely to view and be aroused by adult pornography,
but might engage in sex with children in certain situations. Situational sex
offenders frequently molest readily available children they have easy access to
such as their own or those they may live with or have control over. Pubescent
teenagers are high-risk, viable sexual targets. Younger children may also be
targeted because they are weak, vulnerable, or available. Morally indiscriminate
situational offenders may select children, especially adolescents, simply because
they have the opportunity and think they can get away with it. Social misfits may
situationally select child victims out of insecurity and curiosity. Others may have
low self-esteem and use children as substitutes for preferred adults.
At the other end of the motivation continuum are the more “preferential” sex
offenders. Although they can be unintelligent and poor, they tend to be more
intelligent and more likely from higher socioeconomic groups. Their criminal
sexual behavior tends to be in the service of deviant sexual needs known as
paraphilias. This behavior is often persistent and compulsive and is primarily
fantasy-driven. Their erotic imagery creates and repeated fantasy over time then
fuels the needs. They are more likely to consider these needs rather than the risks
involved and therefore make “needy” mistakes that often seem almost stupid.
When they collect pornography and related paraphernalia, it usually focuses the
themes of their paraphilic preferences. Their fantasy-driven behavior tends to
focus not only on general victim characteristics and their entitlement to sex, but
also on their paraphilic preferences including specific victim preferences; their
relationship to the victim (i.e., teacher, rescuer, mentor); and their detailed
scenario (i.e., education, rescue, journey) (Hazelwood & Warren, 2001). Their criminal
sexual behavior is rooted in their sexual fantasies and need to turn fantasy into
reality. Their verbal skills are usually high, and they are less likely to use physical
violence to control victims. They are more likely to have a history of primarily sex
offenses. Their sex crimes usually stem from a fantasy-fueled and elaborate script
that is far more detailed and elaborate (i.e., dialogue, exact sequence, clothing)
than the “plan” of a situational-type sex offender or common criminal. They tend
to “audition” their potential victims, selecting them primarily based on their similarity
to and consistency with that script. There can be a lengthy “rehearsal” or
grooming process leading up to the victimization. They are more likely to use
fantasy “props” (i.e., fetish items, costumes, toys) and critique the activity, but
not necessarily learn from or then modify their criminal sexual behavior. Their
patterns of behavior are more likely to involve the previously discussed concept
of ritual.
As this descriptive term implies, preferential-type sex offenders have specific
sexual preferences or paraphilias. For instance those with a preference for children
could be called “pedophiles.” Those with a preference for peeping could be
called voyeurs, and those with a preference for suffering could be called sadists.
But one of the purposes of this typology is to limit the use of these diagnostic
terms for investigators and prosecutors. Preferential-type sex offenders are more
likely to view, be aroused by, and collect theme pornography. A pedophile would
be just one example or subcategory of a preferential sex offender. A preferential
sex offender whose sexual preferences do not include children, and is therefore
not a pedophile, can still sexually victimize children.

Pg 34