Validating paedophilia in society.

[Thingol]

I don’t think the stigma will ever go away. Nature makes us much too protective of our kids for that to happen.

As for being “hard wired”, I think the term causes problems. But I can’t believe that being sexually attracted to kids is any kind of choice, regardless of where the causes for sexual orientation lie. (1) Who in the world would choose this? (2) I don’t believe that a man who’s attracted to adults (men or women) could achieve and maintain an erection and reach orgasm by having sex with a child or masturbating to images of children (there’s some new research on this, but I don’t have it handy – will look for cite if requested).

Personally, I feel real sorry for these guys (and women). But I also don’t want them anywhere near any of the children in my family. It’s selfish, but I don’t even want the discomfort I get just being aware of what they might be thinking/feeling.

One thing that disturbs me, though, is that I often see the term “pedophile” used interchangeably with “child molester” or “child pornographer”. In fact, NCMEC (a fine organization) used to have a profile of “the pedophile” on its Web site, including assertions that (paraphrasing, b/c I think they’ve removed this) there’s nothing more important to a pedophile than his collection of child porn and he’s always looking for new material.

I’ve known a couple of pedophiles, both male. I sincerely believe that one has never touched a kid, although I have no way of confirming this. In fact, he avoids them. He’s suicidal most of the time, and although he is also attracted to women, he has turned himself into a total loner b/c he sees no point in trying to get a long-term relationship started b/c of this secret. (He didn’t tell me this secret, btw, I found out and under the circumstances he had no choice but to fess up). The other guy has been in jail and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s at it again.

My WAG is that relieving the stigma would actually make pedos more stable psychologically, which would probably be beneficial to society. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

[Hamish]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Would you encourage an alcoholic if she told you that she was thinking about beer? “Oh, that’s okay. Go for it, it’ll help you kick the craving?”

Funny, I think I made rather clear I wasn’t in favour of encouraging the behaviour, only the action. To adopt your example, it’s more like saying, “You’re not evil for wanting a drink. But if you start drinking again, it could destroy your life…”

Paedophilia’s more serious, of course, because of the presence of an innocent victim. But I still believe we should have compassion for those whose emotional impulses, if expressed, could destroy another person’s life. Of course they can’t act on those emotions – that’s not fair to the other person – but it’s not wrong to experience those emotions, only to act on them.

Our society seems to be very confused about the difference between a feeling and an action. I could see a number of culprits there – North Americans’ Calvinist heritage, the strange, rationalist superstition that once we figure out what human beings are “naturally” like, we should adopt a society to match; and an advertising culture that is constantly encouraging us to indulge every passing whim, no matter how shallow or self-destructive, to sell products.

Simply because a person desires something doesn’t mean they have to have it. If there’s a pressing moral reason, a person should practice self-control, IMO. Un etre humain, ça s’empeche – a human being is something that holds itself back.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Hamish

Funny, I think I made rather clear I wasn’t in favour of encouraging the behaviour, only the action. To adopt your example, it’s more like saying, “You’re not evil for wanting a drink. But if you start drinking again, it could destroy your life…”

I’m confused about the differentiation you are trying to make between “the behavior and the action.” But I have not argued that we should call the person evil. I do argue that we should discourage thinking about sex with children.

Paedophilia’s more serious, of course, because of the presence of an innocent victim. But I still believe we should have compassion for those whose emotional impulses, if expressed, could destroy another person’s life. Of course they can’t act on those emotions – that’s not fair to the other person – but it’s not wrong to experience those emotions, only to act on them.

Where do cognitions fit into your model. Do you encourage or discourage the emotion or cognition about sex with children? And, if you discourage the emotion or cognition about sex with children, is that not stigmatizing?

Our society seems to be very confused about the difference between a feeling and an action.

Perhaps, but I am not. I know very well, though, that people’s actions are due in part to their feelings. If you feel remorse about a behavior, you are less likely to engage in that behavior.

I could see a number of culprits there – North Americans’ Calvinist heritage, the strange, rationalist superstition that once we figure out what human beings are “naturally” like, we should adopt a society to match; and an advertising culture that is constantly encouraging us to indulge every passing whim, no matter how shallow or self-destructive, to sell products.

Well, that’s special, but, again, human experience is an interaction of thoughts, feelings and behaviors, each with reciprocal influence on one another.

Simply because a person desires something doesn’t mean they have to have it. If there’s a pressing moral reason, a person should practice self-control, IMO. Un etre humain, ça s’empeche – a human being is something that holds itself back.

So pedophilic behavior can be willed away?
Let me follow up on Thingol’s argument, proposing that if we reduced stigma, pedophiles will be more stable.

Can we assume a basic model in which a person experiences urges/desires/impulses and either acts on them or does not, and that within that model, stigma plays a role of both increasing feelings of shame or guilt and (perhaps thereby) of dampening the likelihood of acting on the impulse. The basic conflict, it seems to me, is between the person’s impulses to have sex with a child, and the rules about what is good and appropriate for a person to think and do.

I’m just at a loss as to how one would reduce the intrapsychic conflict without increasing the likelihood of acting on the impulse. I have great sympathy for those struggling with these conflicts, but they are conflicts very much because the impulse meets up with a contradictory desire to be consistent with an ideal, an ideal shaped in part by stigma. Yes, reducing the stigma would reduce the conflict, but is that something that we want to do.

[HumptysHamhole]

The following quote is the best I think in clarifying the issue:

Hamlet - However, I think it is a step further, a step that does involve a person’s volition, to fantasize about sex with children. The very essence of a fantasy, in my mind, involves the creation of a scenario in the mind. There is some volition involved in the creation of a fantasy, especially one that is meant to aid in the reaching of self-gratification. And I am quite comfortable in making the determination that this is wrong. Even if it is never acted upon with a real child, the pedophile has exercised some degree of volition.

Some here are arguing that a more distinct line should be drawn between thought and action. I think that also we need to draw a distinct line between though impulse and developed fantasy. Hamlet expressed the reasoning for this in the above quote very well.

Clairobscur - I doubt it’s actually possible to control one’s sexual fantaisies. I wouldn’t know for sure, since I never tried. Did you? Similarily, assuming you’re straight, how would you manage to never have “improper” thoughts or reactions when meeting/seeing an attractive woman? Do you think it’s actually possible?

Yes it is possible, and I am able to get my sexual fantasies somewhat under control. I have been trying ever since I got married. There is a difference between being sexually attracted to a woman and developing a fantasy about having sex with her. Just as there is a difference between being angry with someone and developing a fantasy about murdering them. We all have natural impulses toward certain gratifications (sexual, emotional, etc.) but we should (in my opinion) try not to develop intense fantasies upon those impulses which we find inappropriate or immoral.

[BoardMother]

1)Homosexuality is genetic.

2. Homosexualtiy is NOT genetic.

[Jonathan_Chance]

At the risk of casting us into the abyss…

Do you have a cite for that?

[cichlidiot]

@clairobscur

Well…sure, but not hiring him as a babysitter is a quite sensible thing to do. And though this could be constructed as a kind of discrimination, it’s a long shot from saying say “Let’s torch his house with him inside”, and given what kind of comments one’s hear or read, the stigma we’re talking about seem closer to “pedophiles should receive a bullet in the head” than to “pedophiles shouldn’t be hired as babysitters”.

My point was, since we are talking about stigma, is that though a hypothetical pedophile has done nothing wrong, as far as I know, I still would use that knowledge in a way that may be unfair to him. I didn’t read the OP’s stigma as a certain type provoking violence, your torching houses/murder example, but rather, as a mark of reproach. So, while I realize it’s sensible, it’s not necessarily fair.

I dunno, the whole thing is confusing to me. I read the OP and had problems understanding his analogy to homosexuals. Felt I was back on track, until I tried to figure out what “validity” refers to in the title. Mangetout seemed confused, too, so I felt better. I guess now my problem was with whose definition of stigma we’re all referring to and what the response might be. Violence or discrimination, etc.

[Cerri]

@BoardMother

2. Homosexualtiy is NOT genetic.

3. Cite?

[Hamish]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Where do cognitions fit into your model. Do you encourage or discourage the emotion or cognition about sex with children? And, if you discourage the emotion or cognition about sex with children, is that not stigmatizing?

I don’t think the emotion can be discouraged, though I think cognition can be and probably should be. As long as a person doesn’t act on it, though, I don’t see how it’s any business of society’s what their thoughts are.

Of course the action should be stigmatized. I just don’t think a person who isn’t acting on it should share that stigma – regardless of their feelings.

Perhaps, but I am not. I know very well, though, that people’s actions are due in part to their feelings. If you feel remorse about a behavior, you are less likely to engage in that behavior.

I realize this idea is conventional wisdom, but I’m skeptical. I’ve known many people who engage in behaviour that they find shameful. And though the term is a bit to pop culture for my tastes, I’ve seen the phenomenon of the “shame spiral” in real life – a person escapes their shameful feelings by indulging in behaviour that makes them feel ashamed, which in turn leads them to seek escape…

I’d hope that if we had attached more stigma to the act, and less to the people who have been tempted, but resisted the act, then those people would get professional help. I doubt they could be cured, but psychiatric aid might at least help shore up their self-control.

Well, that’s special, but, again, human experience is an interaction of thoughts, feelings and behaviors, each with reciprocal influence on one another.

…

So pedophilic behavior can be willed away?

“Will” gets a bad rap today. We’ve half convinced ourselves it doesn’t exist – that we’re simple products of environment or genetics without self-direction.

I don’t believe this to be the case. And I doubt that science can never prove or disprove the existence of free will, so it remains an open question. I believe that something other than simple shame and social stigma holds a person back. YMMV, of course.

I believe that most people are capable of self control, most of the time. I’ve never questioned a paedophile deeply on the subject (I’ll admit here to my own feelings of “ickiness” on the subject, and my own queasiness about leaving a child alone with one), but I don’t see how one would be any different.

I’m just at a loss as to how one would reduce the intrapsychic conflict without increasing the likelihood of acting on the impulse. I have great sympathy for those struggling with these conflicts, but they are conflicts very much because the impulse meets up with a contradictory desire to be consistent with an ideal, an ideal shaped in part by stigma. Yes, reducing the stigma would reduce the conflict, but is that something that we want to do.

I don’t think our arguments are enormously different – I just think we have a different understanding of the word “shame.” For me, that word implies a wholly visceral, emotional reaction, devoid of conscious thought. It’s so fluid and irrational that it can be easily denied, ignored, or even (as I said) backfire.

I would argue that “a conscious sense of right and wrong” – an understanding of the consequences of one’s actions and the reality for the victim – is more useful to us than shame. And shame is a painful thing to heap on someone who (in the case of a non-practicing paedophile) is clearly trying their best.

[Hamish]

@BoardMother

2. Homosexualtiy is NOT genetic.

Two people have already called for cites, so I’ll just add that if you do come back and supply one, I have plenty ready from reliable sources. Mainstream psychiatrists and the majority of gays and lesbians – in other words, both the experts and the people with direct experience of the subject – believe that homosexuality is partly or wholly genetic, or at the very least cemented in early childhood if not sooner.

But given your grotesquely racist comments in another thread (the concentration camps here in GD), I don’t really expect to get a rational answer from you

[Lemur866]

Yes, but the contention that homosexuality is wholly genetic can be easily falsified, since there are identical twins who do not share sexual orientations. However, it is also certainly true that identical twins are much more likely to have similar sexual orientations than fraternal twins are.

I think sometimes people use “genetic” in a loose way. It seems to me much more defensible to say that homosexuals are born that way, rather than that homosexuality is genetic.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Hamish

Of course the action should be stigmatized. I just don’t think a person who isn’t acting on it should share that stigma – regardless of their feelings.

I’ve been using the word stigmatize to mean that we should attach an undesirable or negative quality to pedophilia - both behavioral and cognitive. This means to me that we say these thoughts and behaviors are not wanted or valued by our society, and that we do not discourage the association of feelings of shame, even with such thoughts.

I realize this idea is conventional wisdom, but I’m skeptical. I’ve known many people who engage in behaviour that they find shameful.

Right. That has no bearing, however, on the assertion that shame and remorse make one less likely to engage in a given behavior. I did not assert that shame is a perfect mediator of a behavior.

I’d hope that if we had attached more stigma to the act, and less to the people who have been tempted, but resisted the act, then those people would get professional help. I doubt they could be cured, but psychiatric aid might at least help shore up their self-control.

But why would they want to get professional help if there is nothing wrong with being tempted?

I don’t think our arguments are enormously different – I just think we have a different understanding of the word “shame.” For me, that word implies a wholly visceral, emotional reaction, devoid of conscious thought. It’s so fluid and irrational that it can be easily denied, ignored, or even (as I said) backfire.

Shame is an emotion, associated with cognitions and behaviors. But it’s odd that you would suggest that it is easily ignored. As an emotion, it can’t really “backfire” any more than sadness, happiness or fear “backfire.” People interpret it and cope with it differently, certainly, but it is what it is.

I would argue that “a conscious sense of right and wrong” – an understanding of the consequences of one’s actions and the reality for the victim – is more useful to us than shame. And shame is a painful thing to heap on someone who (in the case of a non-practicing paedophile) is clearly trying their best.

And I would argue that people are very rarely motivated by cognitions. They help to guide and shape our behaviors and our emotional reactions, but simply knowing that something is wrong or will be met with a given response (without fear or hope or shame or some other emotion) is not very likely to influence us.

[Aankh]

@Albert J

I am what I suppose most people would call a pedophile, though I don’t think of myself that way.

Thank you for coming in here and giving your point of view. To clarify certain points you raised, I (as the OP) am not in any way suggesting that paedophilia be legalised, primarily because of the ‘lack of informed consent’ factor. Even should this definition be erased from legal books, I would still be nervy about pedophilic actions because in my experience most children and many, many teenagers are still immature mentally, easily manipulable, and simply cannot possess the life experiences needed to make an informed choice. This is a very slippery slope, yes, but I personally can’t see a way around it.
If you don’t mind answering, is the current punitive atmosphere the sole reason that prevents you from indulging in what fantasies you may have?

@mangetout

Mangetout To be honest, this thread is all over the place; what exactly is meant by the term ‘validating’ in the thread title? Are we making a clear distinction between stigma and prosecution? What do we actually mean by ‘stigmatised’ anyway? Is it possible to control social stigma? If possible, is it beneficial?

1. By ‘validating’, I meant something like ‘providing greater understanding and acceptance for’. Did I just do a humpty-dumpty with my use of the term ‘validating’?
2. Yes, there should be a clear distinction between stigma and prosecution. Prosecution is for overt actions. Stigma is faced regardless of whether or not the person has acted.
3. By ‘stigmatised’ I mean the treatment afforded to individuals who have been outed as desiring sexual contact with children (regardless of their actual actions). They are shunned, they are very strongly discriminated against, they are treated like scum, and very often met with physical violence.
4. I think social stigma can indeed be controlled. This is why I brought in my homosexuality example early on. (I should have known what I was getting myself into!) Homosexuality is currently strongly stigmatised by many people, but the winds of change are blowing. There is more acceptance than there was, say, 40 years ago, and one hopes that, eventually, homosexuals will be on an equal footing with heterosexuals in terms of rights granted.
5. Would this be beneficial in the case of paedophilia? Well, it has its pluses and minuses. I believe clairobscur and others in this thread have started going into this, and I refer you to their posts.

@BoardMother

Homosexualtiy is NOT genetic.

It probably is, you know.
Prenatal androgenization of the female foetus has been linked to lesbianism (Money, Schwartz and Lewis, 1984). Also brain differences have also been found in the brains of deceased heterosexual and homosexual men and heterosexual women, specifically with respect to the suprachiasmatic nucleus, and the anterior commissure (Swaab and Hofman, 1990; LeVay, 1991; Allen and Gorski, 1992). Bailey et al (1993) showed that concordance of female monozygotic twins for homosexuality was 48% versus 16% for dizygotic twins. For males and homosexuality, this ratio was 52% to 22% (Bailey and Pillard, 1991).

@HumptysHamhole

@Clairobscur

I doubt it’s actually possible to control one’s sexual fantaisies. I wouldn’t know for sure, since I never tried. Did you? Similarily, assuming you’re straight, how would you manage to never have “improper” thoughts or reactions when meeting/seeing an attractive woman? Do you think it’s actually possible?

Yes it is possible, and I am able to get my sexual fantasies somewhat under control. I have been trying ever since I got married. There is a difference between being sexually attracted to a woman and developing a fantasy about having sex with her. Just as there is a difference between being angry with someone and developing a fantasy about murdering them. We all have natural impulses toward certain gratifications (sexual, emotional, etc.) but we should (in my opinion) try not to develop intense fantasies upon those impulses which we find inappropriate or immoral.

This takes my question to an entirely different level. I never considered the idea that one would even need to control one’s fantasies. Does a person who knows that he is sexually attracted to children but has no intention of ever approaching one sexually - does such a person have the obligation to keep his fantasies in check too? It’s very hard to give an answer here.
For example, I wouldn’t mind if my SO fantasised about other women every once in a way - seems natural and unavoidable to me. But if it became a habit, I would very definitely have problems. So where does that leave me on the fantasising issue? Back to square one.

[Ee-At-Oes]

Thanks Albert,

I was about to make the same exact post so you saved me some time. It is the exact same for me. Women are awesome. I find all of them that aren’t old, fat or dirty to be sexually attractive.

Sometimes I will be checking out a girls rack and then reallize, whoops, she’s like 14. Do I feel guilty about this? Hell no. I used to but came to peace with it. A large percentage of men are the same way it’s just something we can’t talk about it. It’s taboo.

Let me clarify that I do not find anything without tits attractive. I’m attractive to curves and prepubescent girls and males of any age do not have them. But there is a huge difference between attraction and action. I would NEVER and I stress that word have sex with a 14 year old girl. I have just never met one who was mature enough to handle sex. It’s ludicrous to me. Most 18 year olds cannot even handle it. PLus there is the matter of jail. Last year I met a beautiful 17 year old who came on to me. I told her she was too young for me but she tried to convince me that she could handle it. Bottom line is SHE IS 17!!! The answer is absolutely no. We are stimulus response creatures but that little moment between the stimulus and response is where out character comes in.

Most men thought Britney Spears was how when she was trying her best to look 15. But we knew she was 18 so we could say it. Girls mature faster now and when you see a girl in a mini-skit and a C-cup you get aroused and your penis doesn’t check for ID so my best advice is just not to act on your urges because if you do you will ruin your life and chances are someone elses. No sex is worth that.

Another thing is I would advise men not to masterbate to these fantasies either because the emotional attachment added to these images makes the link stronger.

One final thing. Homosexuality is partly hereditary but it is a large part the sexual map that you make up during the first 5-8 years of your life which is a composite of all the relationships you have during this time combined with your genetics.

I really want to know what people think of a grown man who thinks 15 year old girls are hot but won’t touch them on ethics. Am I a scumbag?

[doreen]

@Ee-At-Oes

I really want to know what people think of a grown man who thinks 15 year old girls are hot but won’t touch them on ethics. Am I a scumbag?

Nope - assuming that the 15 year old is past puberty, she has an adult body and physical attraction is normal. But that is very different from a person who is attracted to a pre-pubescent 8 year old.

[CarnalK]

aankh said:
It probably is [genetic], you know.
Prenatal androgenization of the female foetus has been linked to lesbianism (Money, Schwartz and Lewis, 1984). Also brain differences have also been found in the brains of deceased heterosexual and homosexual men and heterosexual women, specifically with respect to the suprachiasmatic nucleus, and the anterior commissure (Swaab and Hofman, 1990; LeVay, 1991; Allen and Gorski, 1992). Bailey et al (1993) showed that concordance of female monozygotic twins for homosexuality was 48% versus 16% for dizygotic twins. For males and homosexuality, this ratio was 52% to 22% (Bailey and Pillard, 1991).

Actually the twin studies kind of show that it is likely genetic disposition rather than “genetic”. Also, I believe that androgenization of the female fetus is a womb environment issue not genetic (my gyn/obs MD dad agrees). Regarding that same study (Money, Schwartz and Lewis, 1984) all the subjects as adults have severe hormonal/physiological abnormalities, trapped physically half-way between man and woman. Not a very useful predicter, IMHO.

I hope you noted my previous objections to your OP’s premise regarding recidivism.

[Aankh]

@CarnalK

You should visit the criminology department. As has been pointed out in previous threads on this topic (which as a non member I can no longer look up) the rate of recivism is rather low for paedophilia in comparison to other violent crimes. It is also not “accepted” that the condition cannot be controlled (rather than cured).

I am unclear as to what you mean by the last sentence. Nowhere have I said that paedophilia cannot be controlled. Chemical castration is proof of this. “Curing” paedophilic urges entirely, however, has not been really successful anywhere. Or in any case, I have seen no reports yet that suggest this. Do please share any recorded/published material that instantiate this, because it would be of very great interest.

Quite frankly, I cannot remember now what my logic was when I posted the recidivism thing. I will definitely clarify what I meant when it comes back to me. Till then, your point is well taken.

@CarnalK

Actually the twin studies kind of show that it is likely genetic disposition rather than “genetic”.

The disposition cannot exist without some genetic, hereditary basis.

Also, I believe that androgenization of the female fetus is a womb environment issue not genetic (my gyn/obs MD dad agrees).

I agree with you that it is clearly a womb environment issue, but this does not mean the effects are not biologically based. The biochemical environment engendered in the womb is what causes the foetus to develop in a certain way. The foetus has almost no control over this influence.

Regarding that same study (Money, Schwartz and Lewis, 1984) all the subjects as adults have severe hormonal/physiological abnormalities, trapped physically half-way between man and woman. Not a very useful predicter, IMHO.

I was not aware of this. Thank you. Just one request, though. Since homosexuality is not the primary discussion topic of this thread, I would appreciate it if you or anyone else who is interested could begin another thread to handle it.

[tdn]

@Albert J

I’ve read the posts here wtih great interest, and eventually decided to post myself in the hopes that I can contribute something helpful. I don’t care if people flame me and call me the scum of the earth; I just hope the Mods have mercy on me and understand that I do NOT advocate illegal activities.

Well, for one thing, I hope your ISP is untraceable. No doubt the lynch mobs have already organized. That being said, I appreciate your candor and bravery. Your post was very enlightening, and I for one thank you for posting it.

I would like to briefly address the attitude of “I’d never let even a non-practicing pedophile babysit my kids. We all know what’s likely to happen.” Suppose someone on this board said something similar about gays. In fact, off this board, people say it all the time. “I’d never allow a homosexual to be near me, because I don’t want him raping me.” I’d hope that most people on this board would see past that barbaric idea and realize that most homosexuals are actually – surprise of surprises – capable of self-control. And yet these same people assume that pedophiles are not capable of the same self-control.

In fact, I’d bet that every person on this board knows at least one pedophile, but will never find out about it because that person has never, and will never, act on that impulse.

And having said that, I’d like to make a little confession of my own. When my neices were very young and sat on my lap, I’d occasionally get a rather nasty narection. While I never took this to the next level by raping them (eww! ugly thought!), it did worry me that I had that reaction. Until I read somewhere that that is really quite normal, because we are at heart sexual beings. Sometimes our bodies react in the oddest ways.

No, that wasn’t my confession. It is this: When I was a teenager, I used to get narections by riding the school bus. I admit it. I had a hardon for the schoolbus! Is that perverted, what? But I’m proud to say that I’ve NEVER had sex with a schoolbus.

(OK, there was that one time. But me and the schoolbus were in love, and a little drunk, and hey, she had the cutest little tailpipe.)

[CarnalK]

aankh, I’m not trying to turn this into a debate on homosexuality merely addressing your faulty assumptions/interpretations. You are interchanging biological basis and genetic basis, the medical world does not equate them.

That last sentence that confused came about because of your quotes around cure and condition in the OP, I took that to mean a more open interpretation of “cure”. I guess just a misunderstanding with your punctuation choices, apologies. However, you seem to jump over my point that was on topic: that the recidivism for child sexual assault is not “extremely high” but rather low.

[CarnalK]

tdn said:
In fact, I’d bet that every person on this board knows at least one pedophile, but will never find out about it because that person has never, and will never, act on that impulse.

Depending on how we define pedophile you may be right. Kent University child sexual imagery study:

Self reported and physiological sexual arousal to adult and pedophilic stimuli were examined among 80 men drawn from a sample of volunteers. Over 1/4 of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest or exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli. The hypothesis that arousal to pedophilic stimuli is a function of general sexual arousability factors was supported in that pedophilic and adult heterosexual arousal were positively correlated, particularly in the physiological data. Subjects who were highly arousable, insofar as they were unable to voluntarily and completely inhibit their sexual arousal, were more sexually aroused by all stimuli than were subjects who were able to inhibit their sexual arousal. Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior.