The notion of a man tortured by his fantasies or his compulsions is just bollocks, frankly.
It also equates paedophilia with homosexuality. The inability to be attracted to the opposite sex is not the same as having a fetish for abusing children, or even finding children sexually attractive.
There is nobody who is wired that way, who has an intrinsic sexuality of paedophilia. None. There are no heroic men fighting a wave of urges. That is a myth.
Men are not compelled by their sex drive. They might argue that they are, but they are not. They have free will.
The poor upset paedophile, ashamed of his desires and fighting the urge to abuse children, does not exist. He doesn't.
A fetish, a sexual proclivity, a liking for something is not compelling anyone to act on it. It's reinforcement with orgasms that cements a fetish. Nobody died from not being able to practice a fetish. Nobody died from not having sex.
Fetishes are learned behaviour. Researchers managed to give a bunch of volunteer men a foot fetish in one study. They didn't have that fetish beforehand.
And these things can be unlearned. Being attracted to children is not a valid sexual orientation like homosexuality or bisexuality. It's a series of visual and behavioural fetishes grouped around abuse.
All the men who claim to be non-offending use some form of child porn. Maybe it's just written porn. Maybe it's hentai porn. But there is not one of them sat on his hands, gritting his teeth and saying a hundred Hail Mary's to rid himself of his unwanted thoughts.
That whole notion just reinforces the idea that men have "needs" instead of wants, and that the male sex drive is this terrible yet awe-inspiring thing that poor brave men have to battle with. It. Is. Bullshit.
And this academic is such a try-hard, currying favour with men by agreeing that their sexual compulsions are so enormous they can't be expected to act like rational humans. Sad.