Is a pedophile the same thing as a child molestor or abuser?

[SummerVacation]

There seems to be so many terms used in the media, especially recently with all the high profile stories getting splashed about the tabloids. It's the media, hardly the best place to get educated so I took some time to look up these terms so I could understand where the real dangers exist. My reasoning was that to protect my own children I should understand these terms and therefore understand who's a risk and be better equipped to spot warning signs early.

I wouldn't say I'm still entirely clear but what I've learned is that pedophile and child abuser or molestor are not the same thing. Sorry if this is old news but the distinction wasn't obvious to me at least.

What I've learned or think I've learned is the following.
Pedophiles are people primarily attracted to children. It isn't illegal to be a pedophile, in fact it's estimated that 5% of males are pedophiles and 1 in 10 males are attracted to children. 1 in 10 is the same as the estimated number of people that are homosexual. So if you know 10 people you likely know someone who's attracted to children. It might be your colleague at work, your brother, the guy at the supermarket, your teacher, a nurse, a fireman, a policeman, a soldier, it could be anyone. Now it isn't illegal because it's just an attraction. Most pedophiles express their attraction by being friendly to children, talking to them and trying to protect them, all quite normal since they live on the right side of the law. They aren't the danger from what I can see.

Child molestors however are different. Child molestors are people who get satisfaction from dominating other people, abusing their positions of authority to get gratification. They may or may not be pedophiles, straight people, homosexual people or any other sexuality. They are people with little self control who are a danger to children. For them it's more likely gratification from abusing people around them and children being weaker and trusting adults are natural targets to many of these control obsesses people.

The reason I think it's important to know that is I believe it helps to guard against potential abuse. Previously I had assumed a pedophile was someone who went around lusting after children, a lust monster in a mac. So if someone was married or dating adult men and women then they're clearly not a danger. But the reality appears to be very different. We're surrounded by pedophiles, people attracted to children but they're not the danger. I shouldn't be categorising people into risk categories based on whether they're married, single, attracted to supermodels, mature women or younger women/girls but I should start with everyone in a single risk category and consider everyone a risk and adjust my view based on their personality. Is someone aggressive, considerate, how do they treat people around them etc.

Spotting a pedophile is very different to spotting a child molestor. with that surprising 1 in 10 statistic I suppose it means in any profession from school teacher to doctor it's likely every school and organisation employs people attracted to children but since they're not the danger then it isn't a problem. Spotting abusers is the problem.

What do people think? Have I missed something? Does this make sense or are there connections and distinctions I've missed?

Someone also pointed out this Cambridge conference although I've no idea what the outcome was.

www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/07/Cambridge-Conference-Paedophilia-is-Natural-and-Normal-for-Males

But it kind of confirms what I've found on sites like Wikipedia, that attraction to children is very common but different to child abuse which can be from anyone so we need to be more vigilant and protective of our children around all adults.

I guess it could be just terminology but the main point is don't assume that someone isn't a risk because they're not a a pedophile. They're different things, better to be safe and appreciate the difference and how to protect against these dangers.

Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder based on attraction to children of a certain age. Not all paedophiles abuse/molest children. Of course, when we hear about paedophiles in the news it's generally because they have abused kids.

Seriously op? You're seeking to normalise paedophilia on a parenting forum?

OP I think you are correct. Paedophilia is basically a sexual orientation like straight/bi etc.

Signora how is OP doing anything wrong by educating herself?! Pretending that there are non offending paedophiles doesn't do anyone any favours, in fact its pretty dangerous. Perhaps society should do more to prevent paedophiles from becoming abusers. There's an article about it here:blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/08/should-we-do-more-to-help-paedophiles/

Itsall it's not just a sexual orientation. Sexual orientations are not pathological.

So when is a sexual preference pathological and when not? Is it determined by what society deems acceptable? Homosexuality until relatively recently was deemed pathological...

Of course it's different.

Paedophilia is the attraction not the act of acting on that attraction by abusing a child.

Paedophiles should get help to prevent them becoming abusers, although that is difficult with the stigma (obviously).

There are paedophiles who do not offend, it is not 'pretending' to say this.

I don't know if its a sexual orientation, my suspicion is that it isn't although I'm hardly qualified to say.

If a man is attracted to women, they're heterosexual. If someone is attracted to blond's they're not blondosexual. I suspect these people are attracted to females but very young females so they'd still be heterosexual or homosexual but specifically people of a very young age. I guess that's pathological like being attracted to blonds or a specific ethnicity.

I wasn't trying to normalise pedophiles, I was trying to draw the distinction and why assuming pedophiles are the danger we are effectively creating a huge blind spot that could allow dangerous non-pedophiles to become a risk. That's not to say all pedophiles are harmless but if we have this image that the danger is single men who go around lusting after little girls then we'll miss those married men, those womanisers, those other people who can also be risks.

Very recently I read a post on here from a woman who's daughter was assaulted by her husband. But how could he? It makes no sense? He's a good husband, he's not a pedophile. My heart broke as I read her story, I can't imagine what she's going through. How common is this I wonder? He doesn't sound like a pedophile with a long and happy marriage.

I was suggesting that it's better to understand the distinction between a pedophile and a child abuser so we can better protect our children. An abuser might be a pedophile or he might be that regular guy with a girlfriend or wife. Equally your best friend might be a pedophile and never be a risk to anyone, he might be the safest and nicest person in the world and you'd never know he was a pedophile. Being a pedophile doesn't make someone a bad person or a danger, if it did then between 5 and 10% of society would make for a harrowing world with at least one of your friends being a monster.

I just think it's worth appreciating the distinction then realising the wider danger that exists from all adults which should lead to a safer environment.

Itsall By definition, for paedophiles to act on their urges causes great harm, assuming we agree that children are harmed by adults who have sex with them. 'What society deems acceptable' sounds more wishy washy, because society deems all sorts of things unacceptable for no good reason (e.g. queue jumping). Sex with kids is obviously unacceptable because seriously harmful, not merely because it's (say) inconsiderate.

(By contrast, homosexuality was never itself harmful and should never have been deemed pathological, and you are quite right to point this out ...)

Welcome to mumsnet, OP.

Well clearly most pedophiles don't offend. With 5% of males being pedophiles and 10% of males being attracted to children we'd have a very full prison population and we'd all have friends in trouble.

I think it's ridiculous to say that being attracted to children is a sexual orientation. It is not, children are not sexually mature. Perhaps a fetish would be a better description?

Where is this figure of 5-10% from? That seems awfully high to me.

TBH, if I knew that a friend of mine had sexual feelings towards children, even if I thought that they would never act on them, I wouldn't trust them and I don't think that any parent would. You can't take that chance! What if this was the first time they were tempted? You just wouldn't ever expose your child to that situation if you knew.

I agree that not all child abusers are sexually attracted to children, it's more of a power/control thing. Much like rape is not usually about sexual attraction, but about violence. Why somebody would want to be so horrifically violent to a child is beyond me :( but I suppose that there are such people around.

The problem with the disorder of paedophilia is that like any sexual orientation it's not easily controllable and inevitable harm results from practising that orientation.

It is a disorder and nothing like homosexuality.

The very best you can hope for is that treatment is sought but it's likely it wouldn't be since they would naturally be ashamed and would very likely have suffered sexual abuse themselves.

I agree that child abusers are not always paedophiles and all the ones I've known are not - they're just violent and or dominating bullies getting their sexual kicks from power and control

What a bizarre post!

Why is this in 'ethical dilemmas'?

And if you're going to educate yourself about this, please spell paedophile properly!

Where is this figure of 5-10% from?

Well, quite. Nobody can really know how many non offending paedophiles there are, since they're hardly likely to broadcast this fact about themselves ...

The idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be recognised in the same way homosexuality is, is imo a very dangerous one. It is what the PIE campaigned for in the 70's - alongside campaigning for no legal age of consent. So that they could groom, sexually abuse and rape children within the law.

Maybe there are paedophiles who genuinely don't act on it - but I suspect the vast majority of child sexual abuse is, like rape, not so much sexual desire, but one of power and control - and far more disturbingly, of sadism. Maybe there are exceptions - but I believe children cannot consent to sexual acts, and will be damaged physically and psychologically by them.

It would be a bit shit anyway, wouldn't it, if you were solely attracted to children. Can't actually have a relationship without it being irreparably damaging to the other person involved. Ergo, not a relationship at all. Like being attracted to inanimate objects, except that objects don't have a psyche to damage. But you'd never say anyone had a "sexual orientation" towards curtains or pot plants, no matter how much they liked to shag them. It would be a fetish. It's the same for children - they cannot return the attraction, they are not sexually mature, they are not a valid target for sexual attraction, end of.

Perhaps if they were an asexual person who is attracted to children. But since the percentage of asexual people is estimated at around 1%, and a hefty chunk of that is people with autism or other sensory disorders who experience touch as being uncomfortable ranging to painful, I find it unlikely that this would overlap. And besides what would a relationship involve? Children don't even have friendships with adults which mimic adult-to-adult friendships. They don't have romantic relationships with each other before puberty. They don't, because they are children - they're not emotionally mature enough to handle adult friendships or relationships, and have no desire to seek that with each other. What do (emotionally healthy) adults look for in a relationship? Companionship, support, (emotional support, practical support), shared interests, respect, equality, sex. Children are not capable of the vast majority of those things, hence an adult cannot have a romantic, even non-sexual relationship with a child.

Lots of people like, care for, look out for children. They're not paedophiles, FFS. And that has nothing to do with a relationship, or the definition of a sexual orientation, either. Someone who is attracted to men doesn't automatically like and care for every man that they meet.

It's spelt both ways, like colour and color. I'm surprised that you struggle with the concept of different spellings for the same word. If that's the sum of your argument then I don't consider it very constructive.

5% comes from "Seto MC. (2009) Pedophilia. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 5:391–407."

I neglected to check on the figures from the Daily Mirror, that other trusted journal, I'll see if I can find some for BIWI.

It just p*sses me off that I do some research to help protect my children and I get attacked, like I'm supposed to turn a blind eye and accept what the Sun newspaper reports. Well I'm sorry but I'm glad I'm in that minority of people willing to research how to keep my children safe, that's something I'll always do whether it's researching harmful food additives or researching physical dangers and health risks.

Er, you can do what you want. But this looks like a debate/discussion thread to me? So we're... discussing?

Reported

Exactly how would your 'research' protect your children?

Wondering about the definitions of words will not help you to protect your children. There are perverts around but they are not out there in their millions constantly trawling playgrounds for children to prey on.

As you may be aware, the overwhelming numbers of children who are sexually abused are victims of members of their own families. No reading of newspaper articles will help you to keep your children safe. Clear messages to them about their physical integrity might however