Indeed Mark, pedophiles are usually, but not always, unable to function sexually with an adult; only kids will do it for them. And they do need to stay put away IF they ever get put away.
Pedophiles that were studied and had the guts to tell it true say that they know they can never ever be rehabilitated, will re-offend, if given access to kids.
Just a little bit of my recent research for a Final Paper. Credit New York Daily News
" So, is it likely that an offender would do it again?
A review of studies of repeat offending - recidivism - by sex offenders shows that up to 55 percent would molest a child again within five years after the offense. One study of 232 pedophiles showed they had molested an average of 76 children each. Those in jail have usually committed more offenses than they were convicted for.
Repeat offenses are higher for those who offended before, began sexual offenses at an early age, and targeted male victims.
One research study showed that the strongest predictor of repeat offenses was performance on a test of sexual deviance. A group of sex offenders were shown slides of children while measuring their degree of arousal as determined by their erection. Those who showed the strongest sexual arousal when shown the pictures of children were most likely to sexually abuse children again.
Can they be cured?
Pedophiles rarely seek professional help to stop their behavior, especially since the behavior is a source of pleasure and - as mentioned above - problems are seen as stemming from society and not their fault. They usually only come to attention when they commit an act, like logging onto internet kiddie porn sites, that gets them reported, caught, and brought to court.
A number of treatments for child sex abusers have been tried.
One medical approach uses surgery or drugs to reduce the level of male hormone testosterone with the hope of reducing sexual as well as aggressive behavior. Surgical castration is rare, but chemical castration - the use of antiandrogen drugs that have been called "erotic tranquilizers" - has had some success. Yet there are drawbacks, considering side effects, offenders not taking their meds, and symptoms returning.
Another drug-related approach is the use of antidepressant medications that have a side-effect of decreased sex drive for some people, and have shown some success in abating obsessive-compulsive behaviors regarding thoughts or acts regarding sex with kids.
Various types of therapies are intended to increase the perpetrator's sense of self-control, the way AA and similar 12-step programs help alcoholics and other addicts refrain from drinking or their other addictions. Participants must admit their helplessness, avoid tempting situations, and learn to delay gratification.
In cognitive-behavioral therapy - the most common treatment approach, sometimes in combination with medication - perpetrators are taught social skills, assertiveness and sex education aimed to increase appropriate social behavior. Therapy involves correcting false beliefs that children enjoy it, that the assault "just happened," that the experience is good for the child, or that the child wanted it.
In one desensitization technique designed to make offenders associate unpleasant consequences with their unacceptable act, offenders are told to visualize a deviant fantasy (seeing young faces) and then a highly negative event (injured genitals, being approached by a policeman).
More controversial has been other forms of avoidance conditioning, where offenders were given electric shocks when shown pictures of children in order to make an attraction to children decidedly unpleasant. Another approach towards the same goal made offenders stimulate themselves to exhaustion and pain while viewing slides of children.
Do the treatments work?
The outlook for success of treatment or rehabilitation is "guarded," since even after intensive treatment, unacceptable urges can persist. But treatment is better than no treatment - a review of the studies show that 27 percent of untreated sex offenders repeated offenses, compared to 19 percent of those who were treated.
Hormonal treatments and cognitive-behavior therapy worked equally well, but the latter has advantages since a large proportion of offenders refuse, or discontinue, hormone treatment".
The DSM IV diagnostic manual offers up some valuable informaion on this as well.
DSM-IV Criteria for Pedophilia, used by the American Psychology Association:
"Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger).
Has the person had repeated fantasies or urges about engaging in sexual activity with a child generally 13 years or younger, or has he actually had sexual encounters with a child? If a psychiatrist sees an individual who has engaged in sexual contact with a child, the diagnosis of pedophilia should be strongly considered. (An individual who committed a single act of molestation while under the influence of drugs, for example, but who had not intentionally targeted a child and was unaware of the victim's age, would not receive the diagnosis. However, this of course in no way diminishes the seriousness of the act of molestation.) A person need not have actual sexual contact with a child to be diagnosed with pedophilia. A person who is preoccupied with sexual urges and fantasies that disturb his functioning (that is, negatively affect his relations with others or impair his ability to work effectively) could also be diagnosed as having pedophilia, even without ever engaging in a sex act with a child.
The fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.
Is the problem clinically significant? That is, has it caused "significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning?" (Note: The same criterion is applied throughout the DSM-IV to other mental illnesses.) Under this criterion, a sexual encounter with a child constitutes "clinical significance."
To make a DSM-IV diagnosis, the psychiatrist assesses the individual for either clinically significant distress or clinically significant impairment. Most individuals with psychiatric symptoms experience a subjective sense of distress that may include feelings such as pain, anguish, dysphoria (unpleasant mood), shame, embarrassment or guilt. However, there are numerous situations in which the individual has symptoms or exhibits behaviors that do not cause any subjective sense of distress, but nonetheless would be judged "clinically significant" and warrant a diagnosis of a mental disorder if they come to the attention of a psychiatrist. In such situations, this judgment is based on whether the presentation causes significant impairment in one or more areas of functioning, including social, relational, occupational and academic functioning. For example, it is well recognized that many individuals who are experiencing serious problems related to substance abuse (e.g., violent behavior, poor work or poor school performance due to alcohol or other drug use) deny that their substance abuse is causing them any distress. Such individuals would be given a diagnosis of substance dependence or substance abuse, in spite of their denial, if the psychiatrist determines that these substance-induced problems are causing significant impairment. Similarly, many individuals who act on their pedophiliac urges claim that their behavior is nonproblematic and may even claim it is "beneficial" to the child. Nonetheless, the DSM-IV would consider such individuals to have pedophilia because, by definition, acting on pedophiliac urges is considered to be an impairment in functioning.
The person is at least age 16 years and at least five years older than the child or children in Criterion A. Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13- year-old.
Is the person at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child who is the object of his fantasies or activities? Psychiatrists must use judgment when evaluating a person in late adolescence who is engaged in a single ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old. Although such a person might not be considered as having pedophilia, such relationships often lead to other psychological, medical (e.g., sexually transmitted disease, pregnancy), social and family problems and should be strongly discouraged".
This is the criteria used when applying therapy in a controlled environment.
The part that gets me is what it does to the child, never mind the perp. There is something that happens to a child, a breech of his/her sanity, when s/he is so violated. To find out that the grown ups in the world have the power and control to hurt in such a way fractures their safety, shatters their confidance and they never ever ever forget, even though they will often put it in the basement of their mind, nail shut the door, seal it and plan to never open that again.
What frosts my flakes is that as a future therapist, can I really look a child in the eye, after s/he's been so attacked by a grown up, and tell him/her that the grown up has rights. Or look at the parent of same child, who's so heartbroken over their child's pain that they can not function and tell them that the offender might be punished, might not. In the helping profession, we are bound by the 'rules' of helping everyone, including the offender.
I hope I'm never that much in need of employment.
