The Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Mental Disorder (DSM) classifies pedophilia as including the following: [A] Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger); [B] The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. [C] The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Strictly speaking, the classification of pedophilia as a paraphilia does not require that an individual actually have been sexually involved with a prepubescent child; the baseline requirement is that thoughts/fantasies/desires exist and that they cause an individual distress. There are, then, pedophiles who do not actually harm anyone but who suffer from unwanted desires and thoughts which they cannot prevent. There are pedophiles who seek and receive help. To stigmatize and discriminate against those who have done no actual wrong is both irrational and unfair, particularly in a society where seeking such help is quite difficult (mental health services in general are notoriously inaccessible and social stigma does not help).

This is not to say that many pedophiles do not cause harm either directly through personal sexual acitivity or indirectly through the viewing of child pornography; rather, it is to say that there are exceptions and that we ought to reconsider our immediate assumptions. I think it is worth noting that the knee-jerk reaction of most of society towards someone diagnosed with pedophilia re-enforces the notion that such a person is inherently bad and cannot be redeemed, which deminishes the likelihood that someone will seek help and treatment.

* As a footnote: Homosexuality and pedophilia are not connected, and the inclusion/reference to homosexuality in the context of this debate is highly offensive, insensitive, and ignorant.

Paodophillia is a practically a fetish. And as the person forming this argument said, they cannot help it. No one can help what they are sexually attracted to. You can't make yourself gay. Yes, child molestation from paedophillia is bad. But any paedophile is classed as bad. Even if they are inactive. I am sure there are some paedophiles that are ashamed of it because of the view otherrs have on them. This kinda puts them in a different light. On some porns sights theres child porn, so that does display it as just a fetist. Surely looking at pictures isn't too bad if no one is harmed? Its too hyped. In many cases its shows as worse than adult rape. Surely looking at a few pictures of naked kids isnt as morally wrong as that?

Sexual desire is something that can not be helped. Years of therapy could POSSIBLY alter someone's sexuality, but it is very unlikely.

I suppose the best example is to ask how you would view yourself if you were raised in a culture where sex with whatever types of people or creatures was considered disgusting and a criminal act (if you like having sex with women, imagine a world where shit like that is illegal and viewed as disgusting). Orwell, in 1984, showed us a world where sex was a disgusting act in general (and even for the purpose of making a baby, it should still be despised).

Pedophiles are currently in that state. We did not ALWAYS live in a time where sex with the young was looked down upon. The Greeks commonly experimented with bisexuality and boy-loving.

To me, looking down on pedophilia is a cultural thing, nothing more. Our morals have caused us to see them as disgusting and something that must be prevented.

Do I believe that pedophilia should be legalized? Not exactly. It's possible to set up a system where the pedophiles aren't chastised for acting out on their desires, but even I don't know how that would work (although, I hope to do research in that field, since I do have much fascination with human sexuality).

As for child pornography, I do not believe that the viewing of it should be illegal. The making of it, sure, but the viewing harms no one. It is media, just like snuff films.

I don't think anything should be classified as inherently bad if they do not act upon it. For example, if a pedophile rapes a child then yes, that person has done wrong. But the same can be said for a man who rapes a woman, people don't classify him as wrong because he liked women, but because he raped one of them. If a pedophile merely likes children, but does not act upon it with evil intentions then how can one deem them evil? The act of being a pedophile, much like a homosexual, isn't bad in that sense, but acting upon them can be perceived to be bad.

I've always thought that pedophiles have been unfairly given a bad rap. Even child molesters aren't as bad as the media makes them out as being. What is so bad about adult-child sexual relations? True, it may be viewed as an infringement on the rights of a child to be secure in making their own choices regarding something which has so elevated a level of importance as sexuality, but it is not unheard of for the child to share the same feelings as his "rapist". Until rather recently, persons were married at a very young age, as Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet emphasizes with a personal favorite line of mine:

"CAPULET: She hath not seen the change of fourteen years.

PARIS: Younger than she are happy mothers made."

Sex acts between an adult and a child are far from unheard throughout the world; the Keraki tribe of Papua New Guinea, for instance, are only one of many for whom sexuality betwixt older males and young children is a must. Were it not for our primarily Christian society, pedophilia would probably not be as shunned as it is in Europe and America.

Depends. My argument is that you can have, say, a 38 year old man having sex with a 28 year old woman and even then it's considered normal. Now you take a 25 year old and he has sex with a 15 year old and all of a sudden he is a pedophile. Both parties are exactly 10 years of age apart.

Are rapists bad? Yes. Are child molesters bad? Yes. Are pedophiles bad? I don't think so. "Pedophiles" simply find young/adolescent girls attractive and sexually stimulating. It is the act of raping/molesting said girls that are bad hence rapists and molesters. As for the the whole arugment that underage girls can't consent. For ages 10 and below sure I agree, but I knew what the hell I was doing and what was going on when I was 12, let alone these 14, 15, and 16 year olds. You ain't gettin' me in a windowless van with all the candy in the world. LOL.

A many in number are victims to syndromes and disorders and are unaware of it. Pedophiles on the other hand can be held responsible for their acts as they are well aware of the acts and their repercussions. Meanwhile what must be blamed is society at large. On a scale (that is worth disputing) society and a human brain are both multi dimensional. While some issues overlap and some do not.

Like a man's sexual desire and a woman's fashion desire for clothes that reveal. A man's natural instinct is to be able to cause reproduction. A man cannot help it.

Now in such cases a man of weak will chooses elements around him to satisfy himself.

]This is just of the many ways a man can help himself.

Most basic- Masturbation,

Different methods include paid sex, forced sex, rapes.

And the easiest are kids who do not fully understand advances or can be manipulated.

But, it is also true that sexual instincts for Pedos develop highly in childhood and retain until grown. It is not unnatural to them to imagine a sexual foreplay with a child. Because it is the child like features that turns them on.

It is unnatural to us but natural and fair to them. Like gays. Some succeed in leaving those instincts behind through self therapy as those instincts aren't very strong. While some who try to suppress them, end up in frustration and in desperation involve themselves in acts of shame.

I believe that people don't like pedophiles because they fear that they may become a child molester. But it is only that potential of change that people hate. I think that pedophiles have a bad name and being one is merely a fetish like anything else. Some pedos may find an 18 year old that looks like a 14 year old attractive just because of her features. I know that some may turn into child molesters but for the ones who don't I feel bad for because it is just a sexual fetish that cannot be helped because it is just what they find attractive. When people argue, "Are you kidding?" And say it's just gross, I feel like they don't give much information on why it is. I personally think chicks eating poop as a sexual fetish is nasty as hell. But if they are just normal people than who cares.

Pedo is considered a mental disorder, hepo (attraction to teens) isn't considered a disorder (yes, you read that right, it is not classified as a mental disorder). Why, because that would mean a vast majority of males would be classified as having a disorder (so, being attracted to teens is in fact normal). Taking this into consideration, now you know, many people wrongfully catergorize someone attracted to teens as a pedo.

There seems to be a lot of very smart and very stupid answers on both sides of this debate, but I've noticed a good majority of the false-sided arguments are completely misunderstanding what the true-sided arguments are saying. I don't think it's AS BAD to look at child porn as it is to rape an adult. I think those who argued with that looked over the "as bad" because that seems pretty obvious to me. I also think history's involvement in pedophilia makes a very valid point, as 3,000 years from now, people will be talking about how in the 2000s people thought it was all right to do whatever it is they will think is wrong that we do today. My question for everyone who voted false is, what is wrong with pedophile if they aren't raping children, aren't producing child porn, aren't watching child porn, and are complying with modern moral standards? And beyond that, even if they are doing all of those things, who are you to rule it moral or not? All of the arguments referring to history's use of pedophilia were trying to make a point: morals change, and rather rapidly at that. Also, I don't think it's offensive to compare gays or bisexuals to pedophiles in these contexts. Their point when making the comparison was that sexual attraction (hetero, homo, whatever) can't usually be changed, and the same can be said for pedophiles. If you would understand, you would know that you should be supporting that statement if anything.