Pedophilia - childhood abuse or not?

likewise wrote:It's a good theory, but it has the same weakness as the sexual abuse theory, namely that many of those who develop pedophilia had 'normal' childhoods, and of those who had horribly abusive childhoods, the vast majority do not become pedophiles. So if the theory is true, it only applies to a subset of the population. Anyway, sexual and romantic attraction is such a complex phenomenon that one would not expect it to be controlled by a single variable, or even the same set of variables in different individuals. The neuropsychological mechanisms underlying normal adult-oriented, heterosexual attraction are so poorly understood at the moment that it seems we have little hope of understanding pedophilia.

There are so many threads on this forum of people with pedophilia and other paraphilias who have no explanation for their condition it is almost self-parodying. If you wanted evidence that paraphilias do not always have to be caused by adverse experiences, this forum seems pretty irrefutable. And yet there are many "experts" who would try to tell you that the opposite is the case, convincing those who seek therapy that they were abused, or that their attraction is the result of low self-esteem or other such nonsense, even though they have absolutely no evidence of this, that's just how they think it should be. At one point I had a psychologist tell me that my sexual masochism was somehow caused by my controlling mother, and this was in the 21st century. Also around age 17, I had one of my religious leaders tell me that it had to be the result of sexual abuse (he claimed his background in social work with sexual abuse victims as qualifying him to make this assessment). Even at the time I knew that was total bullsh*t, but imagine the damage it could have done if I'd taken him seriously. So ignorance abounds, and so does the willingness of people to give overconfident opinions on topics that they know little to nothing about.

tlkproxy wrote:Hello,

I'm nervous about posting this because i don't know what kind of reaction i'm going to get, but here goes.

How many pedophiles on here have some history of childhood sex abuse?

I'm starting to feel like i'm the only one who hasn't been abused in some way as a child. I don't mean this to sound offensive and sorry if it puts people off, but it's almost like i've got no 'excuse' for being this way. Or for acting out sexually with my peers from age 10 onwards. I didn't do those things because i'd been 'instructed' to, or i'd got the idea from somewhere or some adult abuser, i just wanted to do it. Even if they didn't like the idea so much i'd still talk them into it. I feel like i've got absolutely no explicable reason why i'm like this or acted out sexually with other kids when i was young, other than the belief - which i can't seem to shake - that i'm just a born "child molester". Even as a kid myself that seems to be what i was geared towards, despite there being no history of child abuse for me at all.

Am i the only one like this?

The abused/abuser hypothesis is therefore inadequate, incorrect, simplistic, and misleading.

likewise wrote:And yet there are many "experts" who would try to tell you that the opposite is the case, convincing those who seek therapy that they were abused, or that their attraction is the result of low self-esteem or other such nonsense, even though they have absolutely no evidence of this, that's just how they think it should be.

Shrink Rap wrote:No, you are certainly not the only one like this. The idea that if one is sexually abused, one goes on to become a sex abuser is known in the scientific literature as the "abused abuser" (or "vampire") hypothesis and has been roundly refuted. For example, in the peer-reviewed article The abused/abuser hypothesis of child sexual abuse: A critical review of theory and research
in Garland, R.J. & Dougher, M.J., “The abused/abuser hypothesis of child sexual abuse: A critical review of theory and research,” in Feierman, J. (ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 488-509,
the authors conclude:

The abused/abuser hypothesis is therefore inadequate, incorrect, simplistic, and misleading.

GinaSmith wrote:Here's a potentially naïve theory. Assuming Michael Jackson was a paedophile, then is it not possible that paedophilia can stem not just from sexual abuse but any kind of feeling of loss of childhood? I mean, he was forced to work very hard on his music, and I think his father was 'physically strict' at the very least. I'm making an assumption about his sexuality, but it strikes me that paedophilia could be accompanied by some strong sense of loss associated with unresolved non-sexual desires in the past, such as the desire to play rather than be worked into the ground. One might subsequently go on to find attractive those very qualities one felt one wasn't allowed to have. Or at the very least, there must be a certainly wistful melancholy accompanying the sexual attraction - or perhaps that's just precipitated by the knowledge of the attraction being impossible to fulfil in the fullest sense. Shoot me if I'm being naïve.

AnonymousAndy wrote:

likewise wrote:And yet there are many "experts" who would try to tell you that the opposite is the case, convincing those who seek therapy that they were abused, or that their attraction is the result of low self-esteem or other such nonsense, even though they have absolutely no evidence of this, that's just how they think it should be.

Well, I sought therapy, but no one had to convince me that I was abused but my physical scars. Is that evidence enough that it happens at least sometimes because of abuse? I'm beginning to feel like tlkproxy.

I'd gladly give away the abuse and turn it phoney.

Shrink Rap wrote:Hi AAndy,

Were you physically or sexually abused as a child? And now you are a pedophile? How do you know the latter is due to the former? After all, the majority of people abused as children do not grow up to become pedophiles.

AnonymousAndy wrote:

Shrink Rap wrote:Hi AAndy,

Were you physically or sexually abused as a child? And now you are a pedophile? How do you know the latter is due to the former? After all, the majority of people abused as children do not grow up to become pedophiles.

Uh...both I guess. My sexual abuse caused physical damage, so i suppose it could be considered physical and sexual abuse. I don't "know" if my pedophilia is due to it but I don't see what else could be a bigger and more damaging experience than several years of abuse? Plus the age ranges of my abuse sync up exactly to the ages in which I am attracted. Is that just coincidence?

I'm not saying all pedophilia is caused by abuse, but I think it CAN cause it, given the right other circumstances and combinations of events. I think pedophilia could be caused by thousands of combinations of thousands of events -- and be the culmination of everything together. I don't know why we're even arguing who's right or wrong, everybody's different and everybody will reach their pedophilia from their own avenue of experiences. Why is that so threatening?

I hope you don't talk any of your clients (if you are in fact a therapist) OUT of thinking they were abused, if they think they were -- it seems there is as much of an agenda here as was said about the therapists who talk clients INTO feeling they were abused. Just my two cents.