Alas, I can say, at long last, this survey is officially closed. (For all intents and purposes, "gender" and "sex" here will be used synonymously and interchangeably.)
The results can be divided into 6 categories:
1. Male (likely biologically male) pedophiles/hebephiles attracted only to girls
2. Male (likely biologically male) pedophiles/hebephiles attracted only to boys
3. Male (likely biologically male) pedophile/hebephiles attracted to both sexes
4. Female (likely biologically female) pedophiles/hebephiles attracted only to boys
5. Female (likely biologically female) pedophiles/hebephiles attracted only to girls
6. Female (likely biologically female) pedophiles/hebephiles attracted to both sexes
I tallied 104 respondents, with the following results:
1. 61 male (likely biologically male) pedophiles/hebephiles attracted to girls only
2. 15 male (likely biologically male) pedophiles/hebephiles attracted to boys only (I subtracted one, since I have reason to believe that a certain respondent in this category was, in fact, trolling, based on my personal dealings with that certain individual).
3. 13-4 male (likely biologically male) pedophiles/hebephiles attracted to both sexes (one respondent entered "trans-male")
4. 8 female (likely biologically female) pedophiles/hebephiles attracted to boys only
5. 3 female (likely biologically female) pedophiles/hebephiles attracted to girls only
6. 5 female (likely biologically female) pedophiles/hebephiles attracted to both sexes.
Thus, of the 104 respondents:
roughly 17% (or 16.85%) are males attracted to only boys;
roughly 59% (or 58.65%) are males attracted to only girls;
roughly 13% (or 12.5%) are males attracted to both sexes;
roughly 8% (or 7.69%) are females attracted to only boys;
roughly 3% (or 2.88%) are females attracted to only girls;
and roughly 5% (4.8%) are females attracted to both.
OVERALL MEAN:The mean average age of attraction was 10.
The mean average age of attraction to males was 11;
to females, 9.
MEAN AVERAGE BY GENDERThe mean average age of attraction of males to girls was 10.
The mean average age of attraction of males to boys was 9.
The mean average age of attraction of males to both sexes was 10.
MEAN AVERAGE FOR CATEGORIES "PEDOPHILE" AND "HEBEPHILE," ET ALRegarding those who either listed themselves as "pedophiles" or, in absence of that, seemed to come under that designation by virtue of age of attraction (roughly 1-11/12), the following patterns emerged:
Mean average age of attraction of "pedophile" males to only girls: 8
Mean average age of attraction of "pedophile" males to only boys: 11
Mean average age of attraction of "pedophile" males to both sexes: 9
Mean average age of attraction of "pedophile" females to only boys: 9
Mean average age of attraction of "pedophile" females to only girls: 7
Mean average age of attraction of "pedophile" females to both sexes: 7
Regarding those who either listed themselves as "hebephiles" or, in absence of that, seemed to come under that designation by virtue of age of attraction (roughly 11/12-14/15), the following patterns emerged:
Mean average age of attraction of "hebephile" males to only girls: 11
Mean average age of attraction of "hebephile" males to only boys: 13
Mean average age of attraction of "hebephile" males to both sexes: 13 (12.5)
Mean average age of attraction of "hebephile" females to only boys: 12
Mean average age of attraction of "hebephile" females to only girls: *
Mean average age of attraction of "hebephile" females to both sexes: 12
*None listed for this category
Regarding those who either listed themselves as "pedohebephile" (or as both "pedophile" and "hebephile") or, in absence of that, seemed to come under that designation by virtue of age of attraction (including the approximate ages of 1-11/12 beside those of 11/12-15), the following patterns emerged:
Mean average age of attraction of "hebepedophile" males to only girls: 12
Mean average age of attraction of "hebepedophile" males to only boys: 11
Mean average age of attraction of "hebepedophile" males to both sexes: 13
Mean average age of attraction of "hebepedophile" females to only boys: 12
Mean average age of attraction of "hebepedophile" females to only girls: *
Mean average age of attraction of "hebepedophile" females to both sexes: *
*None listed for this category
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTABLISHING MEANFor each range of age attraction listed, I added all numerical items (inclusively, not exclusively; which is simply to say, I included the endpoints), like so:
e.g., range of attraction 5-10: 5+6+7+8+9+10=45.
Next, I would divide the sum, here 45, by the total number of numerical values in the set, here 6, and arrive at 45/6=7.5. So the mean average for this example would be 7.5. For decimals ".5" and greater, I would, of course, round up; for lesser (.4), down.
If the respondent gave two ages, one for boys, the other for girls, I would perform the above procedure for each age range separately, then add the results together before dividing by two.
(Numerical results from zero, 1+2+3...n, etc., could be easily achieved by summation: [nx{n+1}]/2. This figure would then be divided by n.)
After establishing each age range per respondent, I would then add these separate results together and divide by the total number of relevant respondents.
The problem came when someone would list as their age of attraction a numerical range transcending the parameters or scope of this survey. For example, one might say, "I'm attracted to persons aged 8-80." Since the survey targets "pedophiles" and "hebephiles," one might reasonably expect that I would therefore consider 8-15 for the range in the latter example instead of 8-80. As it is, I considered "8-17" in such cases. I put 17 as the uppermost ceiling in such cases for two reasons:
1) I wanted comprehensive results
2) further truncating the ceiling figure did not result in vastly different results, and could easily be discounted as a standard deviation
Establishing definitive, semantic distinctions between "pedophile" and "hebephile" was not easy. For one thing, there does not appear to be, at present, an official or formal definition for "hebephile," or the omnibus, comprehensive term "pedohebephile." Compounding matters, the unofficial definitions given by many online bloggers conflict. Also, the definition of "pedophile" as one attracted to pre-adolescent children is a slippery slope, since the transitional stage between childhood and adulthood seems to comprise both and is variable. Nevertheless, it is necessary for the purposes of this survey to include both, if only because one cannot define one without at least considering the other, in the same way one cannot define a country without considering its exact borders.
Of the 89 males reporting:
the overwhelming majority (numbering 61, a staggering 69% [or 68.54%], more than two-thirds) were attracted to girls alone;
a modest 14% (or 14.42...%) were attracted to boys alone;
and a modicum of 13% (exactly 12.5%) were attracted to both. Thus, for males, the exclusive attraction to girls outpaced that for boys at a ratio of 4 to 1 (61 versus 15, respectively). This result astounded me, especially in light of the publicity and notoriety attaching to pederasty (or homosexual activity between a man and a boy). This figure is even more astonishing if we follow the theory of some here, who assume that males attracted to boys are more likely to visit a forum like this one and self-disclose. If we assume that male pedophiles tend to be less conscience stricken over their heterosexual attractions than their "homosexual" (i.e., boy attracted) counterparts, that would make the present gap here between those attracted to females versus those attracted to males all the more remarkable—
assuming, of course, that this assumption holds true!This result (that of 61 respondents out of 104 being males attracted exclusively to females; more, if we count males attracted to both sexes) is objectively corroborated by statistics. According to the "Crimes Against Children Research Center," 78 to 89 percent of all child sexual abuse victims are female. (
Protecting Our Kids? How Sex Offender Laws are Failing us. Emily Horowitz. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger, 2015. 90, citing this statistic in chapter four, note 44. Criminologist professor Emily Howoritz cogently and forcefully links the current hysteria and popular exaggeration about male child victims to media hype and the vestiges of homophobia still lurking in popular culture.
Ibid., pp. 88-91.)
16 of the total respondents were females, or roughly 15%. Whether this figure reflects the approximate value of the ratio of male to female self-reporting and/or self-awareness, or the numbers in actual fact, I do not know. But the accuracy of these findings is corroborated by other considerations, enlisted here below, and can hardly be contested by any serious minded researcher.
Of the 16 females reporting:
exactly 50% (16/8=.50) were attracted to boys. I know of at least two other females who wanted to respond within this category, but decided against self-disclosure. Thus, this figure could be adjusted by two points upwardly. Such an adjustment, however, is tantamount to tampering with the random results where pure science is concerned. In the interest of objectivity, therefore, I let the figures stand as they are. For that matter, so many more could be added to each category because of reticence and reluctance in general, so that the figures are likely representative percentages, and not absolute entirely of themselves.
Of the remaining 8 female respondents, 5 (possibly 6, one of which answered vaguely) were attracted to both boys and girls (or precisely 31.25% of the entire 16); and 3 (19% [18.75%, or rather more than 18%]) were only attracted to girls.
Can we say that these figures are truly representative? Well, since no person is omniscient, no one can say for certain; just like no one can know for certain the true path of trajectory of a given particle based on quantum physics, but we can come pretty damn close. For just as quantum mechanics is based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and that of certain probabilities, so it is here; we can be relatively confident that these figures are not far wrong in many instances.
I want to direct your attention to a study done on 18 female pedophiles. Of the 18, "Eleven women victimized only boys, and 3 victimized only girls."
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/ ... ?ID=236538That leaves 4 who victimized both male and female children. This spectrum of variegation practically matches that for this survey. Observe:
If 18 women = 100% of the whole, then:
11 who "victimized" only boys = 18/11 = 0.611, or 61% (compared to 50% of females attracted to male children in this survey)
4 who "victimized" both boys and girls = 18/4 = .22... (or 22%, compared to 31% for this survey)
3 who "victimized" only girls = 18/3 = 0.166... (ad infinitum) or 17%, (compared to 18-9% for this survey)
As you can see, the comparisons are striking. I did not expect, nor could I fathom, such remarkably comparable results.
Something else will serve to bolster these findings, and that is the science of probability. It is very improbable, for instance, that the high figure here of 61% for males attracted to female children could be far off. Allow me to explain. Let us arbitrarily assume that the total number of pedophiles/hebephiles in this forum is about 200 (which is likely a conservative estimate, and a low one at that, since this is an internet site servicing thousands). The total number of relevant respondents for this survey was 104. This gives us the following number of permutations (or numerical arrangements) for our theoretical figure of 200 people:
(200*199*198*197*196*195*194*193*192*191*190*189*188*187*186*185*184*183*182*181*180*179*178*177*
176*175*174*173*172*171*170*169*168*167*166*165*164*163*162*161*160*159*158*157*156*155*155*154*
153*152*151*150*149*148*147*146*145*144*143*142*141*140*139*138*137*136*135*134*133*132*131*130*
129*128*127*126*125*124*123*122*121*120*119*118*171*116*115*114*113*112*111*110*109*108*107*106*
105*104*103*102*101*100*99*98*97)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
61!
=
18016064860440147086444112717376625089694162657763907591996459703585119119394396703922454095
38165841622376943594449717676827698831089479137805677070110738656164482591886513849746181894
99379501162823680000000000000000000000000000
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
507580213877224798800856812176625227226004528988036003099405939480985600000000000000
= 354940251173737303353536833529452934198797776955535148838815908378282929663933753529571891504157029668601287815913154438687935692800000000000000=x
X represents the total number of possible respondents taken 104 at a time. To find the probability that only 61 persons are male pedophiles/hebephiles in the whole pool of 200 here, we need to multiply the numerical series of 104, 103, 102, ... , 44, and divide by factorial 61, thusly:
104*103*102*101*100*99*98*97*96*95*94*93*92*91*90*89*88*87*86*85*84*83*82*81*80*79*78*77*76*75*
74*73*72*71*69*68*67*66*65*64*63*62*61*60*59*58*57*56*55*54*53*52*51*50*49*48*47*46*45*44
____________________________________________________________________________________
61!
=
24352920633748418595856899974087521836106530967983559729673063310837316912467425473310750989
61510400000000000000
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
507580213877224798800856812176625227226004528988036003099405939480985600000000000000
=
4797846718201467277318898784=a
Then multiply by the numerical series of 96, 95, 94, ... , 54, (which represents the complement set), and divide by factorial 43 for the complement of 61 (61 + 43 = 104):
96*95*94*93*92*91*90*89*88*87*86*85*84*83*82*81*80*79*78*77*76*75*74*73*72*71*70*69*68*67*66*
65*64*63*62*61*60*59*58*57*56*55*54
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
43!
=
231977780204823269754603265157301787260181160802000785678649986100756480000000000
__________________________________________________________________________________
60415263063373835637355132068513997507264512000000000
=3839721428697337542652223040=b
Next,
a x b =
18422394855483370166254838074246321100254804142352783360=y
Now, x/y =
19266781216997442112065792463001872974160083474284171392689136604
217020763641974124086636.9970968952036656
or, something on the order of so many quinvigintillion. To give you an idea of the sheer magnitude of this number, there are only one billion trillion stars in the observable universe (a tiny fraction of this mind-boggling number)!
Therefore, the probability that only 61 people in the aforementioned pool of possibilities (200) are male pedophiles/hebephiles attracted to females, and that only they should happen to answer this survey for this category, is ridiculously astronomical. This figure goes up geometrically or exponentially as the pool of possibilities rises (e.g., a pool of 1,000, 2,000, so many millions, and so on). It is thus that I say, with the utmost confidence, that the disproportionate number of pedophiles/hebephiles are males attracted to girls, trailed at a remote distance by males attracted to boys, and roughly the same for those males attracted to both. All things being equal, a smaller sample is generally representative of a larger sample. The same holds for the figures herein attested for female pedophiles/hebephiles, although with less certainty given the lower figures.
Even so, since female pedophiles/hebephiles seem to be more "accepted" (for want of a better word), or at least more tolerated, by society as a whole, and seem more readily able to blend in or hide their identities, these numerical figures for them may well be skewed, quite despite the seemingly accurate results here. Other considerations put the figures as higher. Indeed, females who feel "accepted" as they are may be less likely to seek help on a forum such as this, or less likely to get caught acting out (since society may not see their actions as indicative of pedophilia, owing to double standards or willful blindness).
I was able to verify, through contact or online statements, that 94-100% (at least 15 out of 16) of those respondents who listed themselves here as "females" were in fact female in the "conventional," biological sense of the word, and not transgenders. The importance of such distinctions becomes obvious once one considers that some who dispute the existence of female pedophiles will find an easy argument in the claim that "transgender female pedophiles" do not constitute irrefutable evidence of their existence, since biology might dispute this. However, when one's gender (i.e., sex) is incontestable to all parties concerned, the objection goes away.
In closing, I hasten to add that the contrast in numbers between male "boylovers" and male "girl-lovers" (if you well) is so overwhelming here as to beg further attention from the professional community, and I should hope that the presiding psychologists overseeing these discussions would have the professional and intuitive acuity to seize upon this serendipity moment for further study.
[Mod note- additional discussion here- paraphilias/topic172778.html ]