# Paedophilia
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
**Created:** [March 15, 2013, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000 "2013-03-15T13:28:08Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@jezzaOZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jezzaOZ)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/1 "2013-03-15T13:28:08Z")
In his latest column Cecil talks about paedophilia using statistics presumably from the US.
See [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3097/how-common-is-pedophilia](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3097/how-common-is-pedophilia)
When one stretches the net slightly larger to include South Africa you discover a massive difference.
According to reports, 25% of South African Schoolgirls are HIV positive. Presumably from sexual contact. This is compared to 4% of boys.
See
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/over-25-of-schoolgirls-in-south-africa-are-hiv-positive-because-sugar-daddies-are-taking-advantage-of-them-says-health-minister-aaron-motsoaledi-8534790.html](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/over-25-of-schoolgirls-in-south-africa-are-hiv-positive-because-sugar-daddies-are-taking-advantage-of-them-says-health-minister-aaron-motsoaledi-8534790.html)
---
### Author:  [@JLRogers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JLRogers)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/2 "2013-03-15T15:34:23Z")
[QUOTE=Cecil]
Pedophilia is defined as persistent sexual attraction to children where the perpetrator is at least age 16 and the victim is at least five years younger.
[/QUOTE]
I’m far too lazy to look up the clinical definition of pedophilia, but Cecil’s strikes me as ludicrous. By that metric a 22 year old person who finds 17 year old “children” attractive qualifies as a pedophile.
---
### Author:  [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/3 "2013-03-15T16:41:17Z")
Here’s the wiki entry (which is drawing from DSM - a good source). I think Cecil was using the same source, but omitted a pertinent portion:
> [@](#):
>
> As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).[1][2][3][4] An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]
The portion being the part about the child in question being aged 13 or below. This, when combined with the need for a 5 year age gap and the perpetrator being 5 years older, makes sense (and addresses the point raised by **JL** ).
---
### Author:  [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/4 "2013-03-15T17:04:34Z")
Yeah, Cecil is blending in statutory rape of postpubescent minors which muddies the waters. Older teens who are still minors have adult features (e.g., developed breasts for women and facial hair for men). Thus, it is not disordered to find them sexually attractive like it would be for prepubescent children.
It is however, illegal for an adult to actually engage them in sexual activities (with exceptions for lowered ages of consent and short age differences granted by some states). That is a power issue, not a disordered sexuality issue. The state assumes that adults having sex with postpubescent minors involves some sort of coercion, even if that coercion is just psychological or social. And so, it is criminalized (as it should be since it’s also unethical precisely because of the power differential).
Where this latter situation might be psychologically disordered is if an adult purposely preys on the naivete and the power differential for sexual gratification; or if they are incapable of sustaining healthy and sexual relationships with other adults and so turn to postpubescent teens for their social, emotional, and sexual desires. But that’s not pedophilia, it’s [adolescentophilia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronophilia).
---
### Author:  [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/5 "2013-03-15T17:52:38Z")
> [@](#):
>
> a 1997 survey of more than 500 college women found 4 percent had at some point had sexual experiences with a child at least five years younger. Just one problem: these women were on average only 12 at the time…
Well sure, you send a bunch of 12-year olds to college and you’re asking for trouble.
Seriously, I’ve read this a dozen times and I can’t figure out who was saying they did what to who when and at what age.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/6 "2013-03-15T18:39:11Z")
Of the 500 college women in the survey, 4% or 20 reported that at some time in their lives they “had sexual experiences with a child at least five years younger”. The average age that these 20 women had this experience was 12. For example, a 12 year old had a sexual experience with another child 7 or younger.
The range of ages at which these women now in college had these experiences is not given. Presumably the lower limit is 5, since the partner would be 0 at that point. It could involve an older student with a partner as old as 17. However, the presumption is that most were pre-teens partnering with even younger children.
---
### Author:  [@Cheryl44](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheryl44)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/7 "2013-03-15T19:46:52Z")
> [@JLRogers](#):
>
> I’m far too lazy to look up the clinical definition of pedophilia, but Cecil’s strikes me as ludicrous. By that metric a 22 year old person who finds 17 year old “children” attractive qualifies as a pedophile.
Except a 17 year old is not a child.
---
### Author:  [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/8 "2013-03-15T20:00:46Z")
> [@JLRogers](#):
>
> I’m far too lazy to look up the clinical definition of pedophilia, but Cecil’s strikes me as ludicrous. By that metric a 22 year old person who finds 17 year old “children” attractive qualifies as a pedophile.
Yeah, Cecil’s “definition” that you quoted assumes you’ve already defined “children”; its point is to rule out those who are themselves children from being considered pedophiles.
---
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/9 "2013-03-15T20:37:09Z")
> [@jezzaOZ](#):
>
> When one stretches the net slightly larger to include South Africa you discover a massive difference.
>
> According to reports, 25% of South African Schoolgirls are HIV positive. Presumably from sexual contact. This is compared to 4% of boys.
That is certainly a frightening and unfortunate statistic, but it doesn’t necessarily bear on rates of pedophilia. There is a confounding factor that many uneducated people in South Africa believe that AIDS can be cured by having sex with a virgin. Thus men with AIDS seeking out sex with young girls, not necessarily because they prefer young girls, but simply to secure a virgin.
The power dynamic also fosters seeking out victims of opportunity over preference.
---
### Author:  [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/10 "2013-03-15T22:07:34Z")
> [@JLRogers](#):
>
> I’m far too lazy to look up the clinical definition of pedophilia, but Cecil’s strikes me as ludicrous. By that metric a 22 year old person who finds 17 year old “children” attractive qualifies as a pedophile.
There was supposed to be something in there about pedophilia involving prepubescent children. Somehow it got left out. I’ll fix, but the Master is going to be very, very cross.
---
### Author:  [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/11 "2013-03-15T22:11:31Z")
It seemed a little strange to me to start off the column with the conclusion that the situation is “pretty bad”, when it then goes on to show that we actually have no idea because all the data available is pretty unreliable.
---
### Author:  [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/12 "2013-03-15T22:18:29Z")
The U.S. population at the moment is 313 million. 1% of that 3+ million; one-third of 1% is 1 million. These numbers are at the bottom of what admittedly is an enormously wide range. We were of the view that they nonetheless qualified as pretty bad.
---
### Author:  [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2013, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/13 "2013-03-16T00:03:34Z")
To me, the most striking thing about the column is the sober and tasteful nature of Mr. Signorino’s accompanying illustration. I imagine it must have taken Slug a painful amount of restraint to keep the drawing as subdued as it is, given the subject matter. My hat is off to him.
---
### Author:  [@JLRogers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JLRogers)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2013, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/14 "2013-03-16T04:38:10Z")
> [@Cheryl44](#):
>
> Except a 17 year old is not a child.
In the United States a 17 year old is legally a child. 😕
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#):
>
> There was supposed to be something in there about pedophilia involving prepubescent children. Somehow it got left out. I’ll fix, but the Master is going to be very, very cross.
Thank you. Feel free to instruct him to direct his wrath at me.
---
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2013, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/15 "2013-03-16T09:28:09Z")
> [@JLRogers](#):
>
> In the United States a 17 year old is legally a child. 😕
I think **Cheryl44** is making a distinction between a legal minor and a prepubescent. Admittedly word usage can be murky.
I mean, technically, I am my parents’ child, but I am 41. Depending on the context, that word is appropriate or ridiculous. Similarly the juxtaposition between a 17 year old as a minor not adult but not pre-teen.
---
### Author:  [@JLRogers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JLRogers)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2013, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/16 "2013-03-16T11:18:40Z")
> [@Irishman](#):
>
> I think **Cheryl44** is making a distinction between a legal minor and a prepubescent. Admittedly word usage can be murky.
Of course she is; I’m not a complete idiot.
> [@Irishman](#):
>
> I mean, technically, I am my parents’ child, but I am 41. Depending on the context, that word is appropriate or ridiculous. Similarly the juxtaposition between a 17 year old as a minor not adult but not pre-teen.
English is my first language, thanks. Do you not understand that this was my original point? It doesn’t matter now as the article has been amended for clarity.
---
### Author:  [@yandoodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yandoodan)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/17 "2013-03-16T16:28:00Z")
I am impressed – unfavorably – by the use of surveys of college undergraduates. This isn’t Cecil’s fault. The physically and intellectually lazy procedure of surveying your own students is so widespread that professors actually pretend that it produces real science. It doesn’t. Probability theory cannot be applied to convenience collections. Applying statistics to the first 200 students who fail to run away fast enough only tell you about those 200 students. Those statistics don’t even say anything about the 200 students who managed to duck out of the professor’s crazy survey. (Except they are likely smarter than the selected bunch.)
In this case, it probably shows that eight male undergraduates put down the most crudely ludicrous response they could think of in order to mess with the professor’s head.
But this sort of pseudo-scientific quackery has real-world impact. I just read an article in which the writer tries to lessen the Catholic Church’s sex scandal by citing a careful study of the church’s clerics that put pedophilia at 4%. The justification was that this was merely what you’d expect, given the 4% level of pedophilia in the general population, as determined by eight self-reports by male undergraduates. Nothing to see here – move along.
For me, 4% seems 'way too high. Isn’t this claiming that pedophiles outnumber Mormons 2:1? Wouldn’t that imply that we’ve had two pedophile presidential candidates?
---
### Author:  [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2013, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/18 "2013-03-17T11:11:34Z")
> [@yandoodan](#):
>
> For me, 4% seems 'way too high. Isn’t this claiming that pedophiles outnumber Mormons 2:1? Wouldn’t that imply that we’ve had two pedophile presidential candidates?
No, it wouldn’t. After a certain number of trials, we could reasonably expect that we’d draw a paedophile if picking people at random from the general population, but that’s not how presidents are selected. For one, there is considerable scrutiny as to the past of a candidate and a paedophile is unlikely to desire that attention.
Self reports are problematic (and selection bias is one of those issues), but there are methods of accounting for selection bias: comparing prosecution data with self reports is one. Another control is the use of social desirability scales. Opportunity samples can be used to guide further research. For instance, Zimbardo’s prison experiment (originally conducted with, IIRC, white male American students) was replicated by Haslam and Reicher in 2002.
The alternatives are administering self reports to a random sample (which will still suffer from non-response bias and other issues associated with self reports) or relying on prosecution data alone, which we can be reasonably certain does not give a valid indication of extant levels of paedophilia (former victims may take decades to bring allegations to light). It’s neither practical nor ethical to force people to answer questions about paedophilic tendencies, nor to observe the abuse of children for research purposes.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/19 "2013-03-17T16:45:23Z")
Police reports are obviously unrepresentative, but they can provide a minimum number.
I just found [Children, some aged five, commit thousands of child sex offences](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9905727/Children-some-aged-five-commit-thousands-of-child-sex-offences.html).
> [@](#):
>
> A total of 4,562 young people, 98% of them boys, were recorded as the abuser by police in some 5,028 offences between 2009/10 and 2011/12, but the true figure could be even higher as nine forces, including the three largest – the Metropolitan Police, Greater Manchester Police and West Midlands Police – could not provide the relevant figures.
>
> …
>
> [Claire Lilley, policy adviser at the NSPCC] added: “In some cases older children are attacking younger ones and in other cases it’s sexual violence within a teenage relationship.
You can’t extrapolate those numbers to the entire population given the incomplete information, but young child on younger child abuse certainly happens.
---
### Author:  [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000/20 "2013-03-17T19:46:07Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#):
>
> The portion being the part about the child in question being aged 13 or below. This, when combined with the need for a 5 year age gap and the perpetrator being 5 years older, makes sense (and addresses the point raised by **JL** ).
I suspect that extending the definition of “prepubescent” to include children as old as 13 is simply an acknowledgement that sometimes puberty hits later. Basically, pedophilia is specifically the attraction to prepubescence, something you can’t assign a specific age to, since it’s a varying biological process (it happens when it happens), not a legal demarcation (today at 17 years 364 days of age, you’re a child, tomorrow you’re an adult).
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophilia/653000.md?page=2)