This paper is divided into three sections. The first discusses the outcomes of adult/child sexual interaction, and which factors are more or less likely to cause negative outcomes. The second section, which I feel is quite misguided, discusses the legal concept of consent. The third introduces the idea of cognitive distortions, which are likely to be very important for all pedophiles.
Many of the factors leading to negative consequences are exactly what one would expect: the duration and severity of the interaction, the young age of the child, the use of force, etc. What is more interesting is that many of the factors have to do not with the interaction itself, but with the way it is seen and handled by others. Pressuring the child to conceal the interaction is negative. If the interaction becomes socially visible, that is also negative. On the other hand, if the family of the child is open and able to talk about it, that's positive.
This suggests that the harm from adult/child interactions comes from two sources: the acts themselves, and the interaction between the adult, the child, and society. It is entirely plausible that the latter source is the more harmful of the two, and the paper does nothing to refute that hypothesis. If true, of course, that does not make the harm any less real.
This section of the paper is largely based on the literature available at the time.
The second section deals with laws governing sexual activity between adults and children. Here, I think, the paper is deeply flawed.
Most such laws are organized around the principle of consent. The way the laws are written, sexual acts are permitted between consenting persons, but it is by definition impossible to give consent below a certain age. Thus, adult/child sex is illegal.
As a logical structure, though, there are certain flaws. There are discrepancies between consent here and in other domains. For example, in selecting a school or deciding a place to live, the parents are allowed to give consent on behalf of the child. Also, the cutoff point seems arbitrary. Should not more mature children be allowed to give consent at a younger age, or perhaps some form of partial consent? These arguments sound reasonable, are highly seductive for pedophiles, and can be sighted in most forums frequented by pedophiles. However, I believe they are misguided.
Society does is not so horrified by issues of consent; witness the current controversy about date-rape. Nor does society really care whether the logical structure of the law is consistent. What really matters to society is that sex between adults and children is illegal. Fiddling around with the definition of consent isn't going to help. What I feel would be far more productive is discussion over whether adult/child sex is moral or immoral, why so, and under what circumstances.
The third section introduces the concept of cognitive distortions among pedophiles. Pedophilia would seem to be a very simple thing, merely a sexual attraction toward children. But, in reality, it has a lot of complex implications, and distorted thinking is one of them.
Many cognitive distortions attempt to justify or rationalize pedophilia, or pedophilic sexual activity if that is taking place. One example (to pick one at random) is the thought sequence "it isn't the sex with children that hurts them, it's society's reaction; therefore if I indulge and the child is harmed, it isn't my fault, it's society's, and therefore it's ok."
I like to make a three-way distinction in cognitive distortions (not made in the paper). The first kind is beliefs that are not consistent with reality. For example, I once believed that the majority of people had significant sexual attraction toward children, but were unwilling to admit it. Another example would be underestimating the danger of, say, visiting a family's home.
The second type is thought patterns that only occur only during sexual arousal. Most of the time, for example, you could feel that adult/child sex was repugnant. However, during arousal, it could seem highly desirable. If the disparity is very large, this type of cognitive distortion can feel a bit like a split personality.
The third type, and in a way the most insidious, is failure to bring thoughts to consciousness. The big problem with this type is that it can sabotage control strategies. For example, suppose that you had decided not to go near playgrounds. Then, while planning a route, you forget that it would take you right by a playground. You don't realize the fact until it's already too late.
Cognitive distortions are scary and unpleasant things. It is not good to feel like your mind is betraying you, sabotaging your control strategies, undermining your decisions. One of their basic causes is the fact that it is so difficult to talk about pedophilia with other people. The best way to deal with cognitive distortions is to be more aware of them, to find people (such as a therapist) to discuss them with, and to confront them with solid information.
The conclusion of the paper gives a number of alternatives for dealing with pedophilia. First, the pedophile can attempt to change society so that it is more tolerant of adult/child sex. Second, the pedophile can go ahead and molest children anyway. Third, he can find a culture that supports adult/child sex. And fourth, to change his arousal pattern to that he is no longer attracted to children. The authors seem to believe that this latter choice is viable. However, the evidence for being able to change arousal patterns in this way is slim, especially for the behaviorist types of treatment they suggest.
They ignore entirely what I feel is the best alternative, which is to exercise moral choice. That is, to accept that one is attracted to children, but to realize that acting out on that attraction is wrong, and thus decide not to do so. I believe the authors of this paper seriously underestimate the power of moral choice.
Peace,
Somebody Somewhere