Please note that I know that most, hell, 99.999% of gay people are not pedophiles and that I do not mean to imply that in any shape matter or form.
It seems like that when you here about pedophiles that it is mostly an older men preying on small boys (see NAMBLA). Is this how it usually is? Or is this only a false impression that we get?
No.
False impression. The proportion of young girls who are sexually abused is greater than the proportion of young boys. HOWEVER most of the abuse of girls is by family members (fathers, step fathers, uncles etc), which means that it is less publicised.
Everyone can worry about NAMBLA and the local priest/boy scout leader/youth leader, while most people are quite happy to sit back and say “that kind of thing isn’t happening in my family”.
It’s also worth noting that if you are a man sexually attracted to children, of either sex, the unrelated children you are likely to be able to gain access to are more likely boys.
No, most sexual predators were themselves victims of sexual abuse as a child. ie, the motivation to molest children of the same sex is distinct from regular sexual compulsion. The motivation for adult sexual relations is biological, the motivation for child sexual abuse is usually a result of abuse that has happened to the abuser.
Here are some stats (but please note that thier definition of abuse might not fully fit our definition)
-------------------QUOTE--------------
It is estimated that 20 to 40 percent of adult women in the United States were sexually abused before the age of 18. For men, the range is 10 to 20 percent. That’s 24 million to 48 million women and 11 million to 22 million men.
The abuse ranges from a grandfather fondling his grandson’s genitals to a stepfather performing oral sex on his sleeping stepdaughter in the middle of the night, from a Little League coach molesting his players to a teenager raping his date.
one small point:
This is true of boys too. All children are more likely to be abused by family members and friends than strangers (only 10% of abuse under 6 is by strangers).
It’s not about sexual attraction. It’s about power. So I think your question is moot.
You’re thinking of rape, not pedophilia.
Some of the responses here are a bit misleading. It’s wrong to identify any pedophile as “gay” or “straight” based on whether they prefer little boys or little girls. In fact, most people who prey on prepubescent children consider themselves “straight” with adults, regardless of whether or not they prefer boys or girls. With teenage children, however, it’s different – men who like teenage boys are far more likely to think of themselves as “gay”.
It does appear that boy-molesters are more politically organized than girl-molesters; there’s no girl-lover equivalent to NAMBLA, for instance.
No, I beg to differ. I would submit that any non-consensual sexual relationship is about power, whether it’s between two adults or between an adult and a child.
Well, it is and it isn’t. Certainly, a pedophile has power over his (we’ll say he in this instance) victim, mostly because of the ages. BUT…they are sexually attracted to children, and many don’t actually “rape” a child in the way we think of rape. It’s more of a seduction and grooming. Many pedophiles believe that the child consented, and wanted it, and that they were doing something good. They aren’t out to dominate or harm children-not as their first priority, which is first priority with rapists. Pedophiles want a sexual relationship with a child. They will manipulate and dominate, but that’s secondary to their goal: sex. With rapists, it’s the opposite-sex is the means used to dominate and control.
Guin’s observations line up with something valid. Back when the debases about gay sex were originally getting heavy over in GD, matt_mcl spoke quite strikingly about his adolescent sexuality. And his first relationship was with an older partner, and in his considered opinion a beneficial rather than a trauma-inducing one. (I’d prefer that he speak to that beyond that, which is what little I remember about his post after four years.) His partner would definitely have been considered an ephebophile, given matt’s age at the time.
I suggest that there is a spectrum between the grooming and manipulation of a naive child that Guin describes and the completely consensual relationship entered into by a mid-teen that matt described, and that this will vary with the age, physical and emotional maturity of the child, and the character of the pedo/ephebophile.
And I’m not at all interested in getting into a position where it sounds like I’m defending pedophilia in any way, but the recent discussions regarding it did get me to examine what I know of adolescent psychology and sexuality, and I believe that observation does deserve to be made. There are shades of grey to the problem, albeit most of them are a pretty dark grey difficult to distinguish from the black contrasted with white of the more simplistic damn-them-all approach.
However, there is one semantic problem with the OP which deserves being looked at. I doubt Muad’Dib had any intention of pulling a definition-switch, but he in fact did.
There is one set of definitions of the terms “homo-” and “heterosexual” that divides all sexual contact into two clear categories according to the sex(es) of the partners involved. There is another usage in which “homosexual” = “gay” = “person attracted to other persons of the same sex and roughly comparable age.” If “gay” means “adult man attracted to other adult men” or “adolescent male attracted to other adolescent males,” then by that definition, no pedophile is gay, or straight either. It becomes a separate sexual orientation characterized by both sex and age. And the work done by psychopathologists seems to support that contention; recidivism is high because it is in effect an orientation.
But Muad’Dib’s question seemed to invoke the gay/straight monolithic divide definition. The problem with this as applied to the question being asked is that it does pull a bait-and-switch in the definition (which I hasten to add I can see clearly was unintentional). But, risking invoking Santorum’s Curse, the answer to the question as asked is reminiscent of the answer of the old shepherd to the Kinsey researcher: “Only the ewes! I ain’t no queer!” 
I think the argument you’re looking for is the argument of proportions promoted by Focus on the Family. Here’s a debunking by The New Republic (authored by a Log Cabin Republican). Let me stress again what Polycarp, the second article, and nearly every study cited by the first article are saying:
When one talks generally about pedophilia, people include sex with teenagers & adolescents with that of sex with children. I heard said that dynamics involved are generally quite different.
Which I think is obvious. Yeah, it ranges from skeevy to disgusting for an adult to have sex with a teenager, but number one, a teenager has sexual urges and is capable of comprehending what sex is. Number two, a teenager is considerably more aware and able to consent than a child, and three, attraction to a teenager is more natural. It may be at the extreme end of normal, but a teen has secondary sexual characteristics. Biologically at least, a teen is ready to have sex. A child is not. I think most adults would agree that it’s considerably easier to be attracted to a 16-year-old than an 8-year-old.
The question is debatable?
She was using the OTHER, more popular definition of moot.
How about letting ivylass speak for herself?
I felt it was pretty clear from context that she was saying “since it’s about power and not sexual attraction, orientation is moot.” If I’m wrong about what she meant and about the way you meant the question, my bad.
:smack: Moot meaning irrelevant.
Rene Guyon Society?