Gnu asks joe a question about adoption

[Azdgari]

Kimberly is correct that there are several relevant, analogy-breaking differences between (for example) a homosexual male non-pedophile adopting a young male child, and a heterosexual male pedophile adopting a female child.

1. The homosexual male non-pedophile is not attracted to young male children; he is attracted to men.  So sexual attraction to his charge is not an issue in that case.  And sexual attraction to the adopting parent's charge is one of key problems under discussion.

2. With respect to the "pedophile vs gay" comparison in general - an adult man is considered responsible for his own actions; he can legally consent to sex.  It is not automatically considered a form of rape.  A child is not considered responsible for his or her own actions; (s)he cannot legally consent to sex.  It is automatically considered a form of rape.  Whether you think this is morally right or not is another topic entirely.  At issue are adoption considerations.  So long as the above is true, an analogy between gay adoption and pedophile adoption is further broken.[1]

1.	I could see a case for gay male pedophiles being able to adopt female children, or for straight male pedophiles being able to adopt male children.  But those are not the situations under discussion.

[Kimberly]

I could see a case for gay male pedophiles being able to adopt female children, or for straight male pedophiles being able to adopt male children.  But those are not the situations under discussion.

I think it's relevant to this topic. Can you not question the motives of someone who chooses to adopt the very sex(and in this situation race[1]) that is their primary attraction? IMO it's a very telling sign that the intent may not be as pure as we would be led to believe. It would be safer for the pedophile and the child if there was no attraction. I don't see why the pedophile would want to torment themselves with daily temptation, unless they enjoyed something more than the love a parent shares with their child.

1.	I'm pretty sure this was established elsewhere.

[Mr. Blackwell]

How many heterosexual men are not attracted to nubile Asian girls?

Don't know for certain but I personally know a few. Asians just ain't their thing. Call them prejudiced if you will, but everyone has their preferences...which is perfectly natural...of course.

[Azdgari]

I think it's relevant to this topic.

You think that what is relevant to this topic, Kimberly?  I don't think you read and understood what I actually wrote there.  In the situations I described in my footnote, there is no attraction.

[Gnu Ordure]

We're using Joe's definition of paedophile, attraction to a post-pubescent child; e.g. a 31-year-old and a post-pubescent 11-year-old.

Fixed that for you.

Joe, since you're the one insisting on calling yourself a paedophile when you're not, you're not in a position to be pedantic about my terminology. But since you brought it up, let's clarify. Postpubescent has three meanings.

Puberty is a developmental phase which lasts about four years, in which a child develops into an adult. Its beginning can be conveniently defined as the first ejaculation for boys and the first menses for girls.

Therefore, in its strictest sense, postpuberty starts at the end of those four years i.e. it is equivalent to the beginning of adulthood. Sexual development is complete (more or less).

However, psychologists more often use the term to refer to the final stages of puberty. Encyclopedia Britannica:

The phase of postpubescence starts when pubic hair growth is complete, a deceleration of growth in height occurs, changes in the primary and secondary sexual characteristics are essentially complete, and the person is fertile. Some changes in primary and secondary sexual characteristics occur in this phase. For instance, in males, it is during this period that the beard begins to grow.

Thirdly, people often use the term to mean, after the onset of puberty, which is the least accurate. But if that's the version you want to use (and I've used it myself in these discussions with you), that's OK with me.

A child should not be the object of its parent's sexual desire, regardless of whether the desire is acted upon.

I'm not sure what relevance the word "should" has in discussing involuntary behavior.

I meant that is unhealthy for a child to be the object of its parent's sexual desire.

You're also making the assumption that pedophiles automatically find ALL children attractive.

A rubber fetishist will tend to be attracted to people wearing rubber. A paedophile will tend to be attracted to a child of the right age. And active paedophiles are known to be opportunistic.

If you had a beautiful sister, what would stop you from sleeping with her? What if she was only a step sister, or adopted sister?

Incest taboo^Wiki, as I mentioned before.

[Kimberly]

I think it's relevant to this topic.

You think that what is relevant to this topic, Kimberly?  I don't think you read and understood what I actually wrote there.  In the situations I described in my footnote, there is no attraction.

No, I'm certain I understand and I know I read[1] exactly what you said. I think it's you who doesn't understand me, perhaps there is something I didn't articulate clearly? I know what you said, and what I quoted, was discussing lack of  attraction. I was explaining how I thought that was good point and relevant to this thread because since Joe decided to "adopt" a child which happened to be the sex of his attraction it may (or may not) create a motive that can be questioned.

Are we on the same page yet?

1.	I'm actually a little curious why you think it's safe to assume that I didn't read your post in it's entirety? That's not something I'm known for or accused of.

[Gnu Ordure]

Hi Albeto,

Reading your post, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me; we seem to be in agreement on many points of this.

We're using Joe's definition of paedophile, attraction to a post-pubescent child; e.g. a 31-year-old and a pubescent 11-year-old.

That's not Joe's definition.

I'm sure it is; the test-case is a 31-year-old man, because that's Joe's age, and an 11-year-old girl, because that was the age of the model he posted in the other thread as an example of someone he found sexually attractive.

Most paedophiles do not coerce their victims, if we're using the wiki definition of coercion:

I consider grooming for sexual behavior a kind of coercion.

I can agree to that.

Yes, but adopting a child requires a level of physical intimacy which doesn't happen between adult strangers. To a (true) paedophile, a four-year-old may look like Brad or Angelina do to an adult.

By this argument, step-daughters ought not live in the same home with their mothers' new husbands, and blended families with teen step-siblings ought to be given separate residence.

It's a fact that step-children are more likely to be sexually abused by their parents than biological children. That's a good reason to be vigilant in those scenarios, and it's why adoption agencies' enquiries are so intense.

Imagine that you were responsible for children who (somehow) looked like Brad or Angelina. And that you were responsbile for dressing and undressing them, and giving them baths and washing them all over. And that he/she was happy to curl up naked on your lap and kiss you and tell you how much they love you - that's what real children do. And all the time you're feeling this intense sexual attraction to them. You have an erection/you're wet.

I've had jobs where there was close physical and emotional proximity.

That's not the same as being a parent 24/7.

Would you be happy for a (true) paedophile to bathe your 4-year-old daughter? Even though he assured you that he would never act on his sexual feelings for her, and that he would ignore his erection? And let's say he's trustworthy and he keeps his word - though he goes off later to masturbate alone about the experience. Would you be cool with that?

The question is irrelevant.

You may consider it so, but I'd still like to know your answer.

[Azdgari]

Are we on the same page yet?

Closer.  Apparently I'm just confused as to how instances of pedophiles adopting children of the sex they are not attracted to is particularly relevant to the problem of pedophiles adopting children of the sex they are attracted to.

[nogodsforme]

Woody Allen and Soo Lin. Guess who had the power in that relationship? The much older, much richer, famous, brilliant father figure? Or the "nubile" young Asian adopted daughter? He had no choice but to leave his wife (her mother) and run off with the Asian chick. Any man would.

She manipulated him completely with her sneaky Asian wiles. She probably stood around every day in a white bikini beginning at age 11, posing by the pool, leaning over and smiling up at him all the time.

She tricked him into thinking he was her dad, and then forced him to be her sexual partner. He didn't want to do it, but she had to have him. She made him do it.

And he was so ashamed and humiliated that he made a film about it. 

[Gnu Ordure]

Of course, there are different kinds of adoption.  A pregnant woman may decide that she doesn’t want to parent, and she (hopefully in conjunction with an agency and an attorney who are interested in protecting her rights) she makes up an adoption plan, screens prospective families, and has the final say.

That's interesting, Quesi. And it contradicts what Joe said:

It's pretty naive of you to think that I give a f**k what a woman who abandons her child wants. Whether that means given up for adoption or dumped on the street, the mother loses the right to make any decisions about how or with whom their child is raised.

Quesi:

My home study delved into my own childhood, the way I was disciplined by my parents, the ways I plan to discipline my own child, my commitment to education, my ability to deal with a wide range of special needs that an adoptive child may face, my values concerning race and ethnicity and my ability to raise a child of another race, including my personal and professional associations with people of a variety of races, my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), my membership in a wide range of groups and organizations, my relationships with my family members, my support systems, etc.

But what about your sex-life, Quesi? Did they ask about your orientation, your sexual history, and your current behaviour? Did they ask you if you were a paedophile?

[Kimberly]

Azdgari, Maybe it's not relevant. I could be entirely off base and 100% wrong.

If a pedophile chooses to adopt a child that is of a sex they are not attracted to they aren't likely to have to deal with the same issues as a pedophile who chooses to adopt a child of the same sex that they are attracted.

Bath time would be safe.
Having your child sit on your lap would be safe.
There would be no involuntary sexual attractions to hide or prevent.
No temptation.

I could go on but I'm sure get the gist. Of course I took it one step further by begging a question. Since Joe decided to not pick the safe route and instead may one day may be faced with the consequences of his decisions I question his motives. I wonder if he's as sincere as he would have us believe. One could also question his sincerity based off the tone on the website where he is raising funds for his daughter. Or that he is attempting to raise 50K for a porno to help benefit the LGBT community with no links to support how they will be beneficiaries of these funds.

All I'm attempting to establish is that there are actions being made by Joe that bring in to question the safety of children when pedophiles attempt to raise children of a sex that they have an attraction for.

I'm cool with being 100% off base. If I am it won't the first or last time I'm wrong.

I'm still curious as to why you chose to assume I didn't read your post? I also hope we are on the same page now.

[Azdgari]

If a pedophile chooses to adopt a child that is of a sex they are not attracted to they aren't likely to have to deal with the same issues as a pedophile who chooses to adopt a child of the same sex that they are attracted.

I agree 100%.  That was my only point.  And you've brought up a relevance I had not considered:  The option of adopting children of a sex one is not attracted to does call into question the motives of a pedophile who seeks to adopt a child of the sex (s)he is attracted to.  From what Joe has said, that's not his situation.  But it's a valid point re: the issue of this thread in general.  So I was wrong there.

All I'm attempting to establish is that there are actions being made by Joe that bring in to question the safety of children when pedophiles attempt to raise children of a sex that they have an attraction for.

Oh, undoubtedly.  The whole thing stinks now.

I'm still curious as to why you chose to assume I didn't read your post? I also hope we are on the same page now.

We are.  And I never assumed you didn't read it; I assumed you'd misread it.  And I was still wrong.

[Quesi]

Quesi:

My home study delved into my own childhood, the way I was disciplined by my parents, the ways I plan to discipline my own child, my commitment to education, my ability to deal with a wide range of special needs that an adoptive child may face, my values concerning race and ethnicity and my ability to raise a child of another race, including my personal and professional associations with people of a variety of races, my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), my membership in a wide range of groups and organizations, my relationships with my family members, my support systems, etc.

But what about your sex-life, Quesi? Did they ask about your orientation, your sexual history, and your current behaviour? Did they ask you if you were a paedophile?

No.  I was not asked specifically if I was a pedophile.  But I was asked if I had suffered any sexual abuse as a child. 

Although we know that not all victims of sexual abuse go on to become sexual abusers, a wildly disproportionate percentage of pedophiles were sexually abused as children.  Also, victims of sexual abuse, especially people who had been victimized as children, are more likely to suffer from a range of other psychological disorders, including depression, which might impact on parenting.  If I had been sexually abused as a child, I imagine that there would have been further, more probing questions.  It certainly would not have excluded me, (I know at least one adoptive parent who disclosed her childhood sexual abuse during her home study) but it would have warranted further investigation.   

I was also asked about my sexual activities, as a way of determining who else might be in the home on a regular basis and have access to a child, or to determine whether I had a string of strange men wandering in and out of my home, and presenting a threat to a child. 

I was also fingerprinted (many times) and one set of my fingerprints were submitted to the same database as US teachers in order to receive “child abuse clearance.”  Any history of child abuse would have excluded me from the pool of prospective adoptive parents.  In terms of international adoptions, many countries will not allow someone with a DUI conviction to adopt because it is seen as evidence of “poor moral character.” 

In spite of careful screenings, abuse happens.  Children in foster care are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse. 

According to New York law firm Orlow, Orlow and Orlow, as many as 75 percent of all children in the foster care system, upon leaving the system, will have experienced sexual abuse. A 2009 article written by this law firm, Sexual Abuse: An Epidemic in Foster Care Settings? cites a John Hopkins University study that discovered that the rate of sexual abuse within the foster-care system is more than four times as high as in the general population and in group homes the rate of sexual abuse is more than 28 times that of the general population. These statistics reflect only the sexual abuse that is experienced in the foster care system, not the abuse experienced from where they were apprehended. This study also shows a large problem of child-on-child sexual abuse within the system as well.

Read more at Suite101: Sex Abuse in the Foster Care System | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/sex-abuse-in-the-foster-care-system-a303097#ixzz21AVJw6yF

I think that there are multiple factors that make foster children especially vulnerable, and I really don’t think I have the emotional strength to start writing about them right now.  As I have stated in previous posts, and as Gnu has stated, child sexual abuse is about power imbalances. 

[joebbowers]

With respect to the "pedophile vs gay" comparison in general - an adult man is considered responsible for his own actions; he can legally consent to sex.

We all know that. This has been repeated and addressed about eleventy billion times now.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they are both involuntary sexual attractions. The subject did not choose to have those feelings. Do I seriously even have to continue explaining that? I feel like that should be a known fact at this point in the discussion.

[joebbowers]

This has come up too many times for me to reply to each individual instance, but I must say it's disturbing how many of you seem to think that simply being attracted to children means you'd rape one if you had the chance. That's just beyond stupid.

[Quesi]

This has come up too many times for me to reply to each individual instance, but I must say it's disturbing how many of you seem to think that simply being attracted to children means you'd rape one if you had the chance. That's just beyond stupid.

Ok Joe.  Fair enough. 

So who does rape children? 

[Seppuku]

I think his point is:

If you're attracted to children it doesn't mean you'll rape them. There's people attracted to all sorts out there and do not rape. Heck, furries don't necessarily go around raping cats. The person attracted to a child could be a perfectly normal functioning human being with respect for morality and the law and would never harm a child. Sexual attraction doesn't mean rape, it could lead to rape, but it depends wholly on the individual. Heck, there could be twice as many child raped per paedophile than there are women raped per heterosexual, but that doesn't mean if somebody is attracted to children they're likely to rape a child in their life time.

Joe seems to perceive himself as one of those people, he's got adopted kids, is married to somebody of a legal age and he hasn't suggested that he's ever hurt a child, in fact he said he wouldn't. The fact he'd care for children in need of a loving family marks as a positive for me. Based on my impression of him, he would fit the bill, even if I don't agree with everything he says on sexuality.

[Quesi]

Thank you Seppuku.  I think I do understand the point he is trying to make.

Joe has argued now for months across three marathon threads that pedophiles don't molest, rape or harm children.

So I think it is fair to ask who, in Joe's opinion, is responsible for molesting and raping children. 

[albeto]

Joe has argued now for months across three marathon threads that pedophiles don't molest, rape or harm children.

Interesting.  I come away with the impression that in the same way men who rape women don't represent all men, pedophiles who rape children don't represent all pedophiles. 

I think the difference isn't in sexual attraction but in social skills, namely recognizing empathy for a victim.  That's not limited to pedophiles any more than it's limited to men, or women, heterosexual or homosexual.  It's a class of its own that is not correlated to sexual attraction. 

[pianodwarf]

Interesting.  I come away with the impression that in the same way men who rape women don't represent all men, pedophiles who rape children don't represent all pedophiles.

Right -- and in fact, contrary to popular belief, most pedophiles never act on their impulses because they know it would be wrong to do so.  Being a pedophile means only that you are sexually attracted to children, not that you lack a conscience or moral compass; that's a different and unrelated disorder.

[Quesi]

Interesting.  I come away with the impression that in the same way men who rape women don't represent all men, pedophiles who rape children don't represent all pedophiles.

Right -- and in fact, contrary to popular belief, most pedophiles never act on their impulses because they know it would be wrong to do so.  Being a pedophile means only that you are sexually attracted to children, not that you lack a conscience or moral compass; that's a different and unrelated disorder.

I admit that I know a lot more about the victims of sexual abuse than I do about the perpetrators of that abuse, but the Harvard Medical School published an article two years ago which agrees with many of the arguments that Joe has made.  But it goes on to say:

Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way. Typically this involves exposing themselves to children, watching naked children, masturbating in front of children, or touching children's genitals. Oral, anal, or vaginal penetration is less common.

Fears about predatory behavior are valid. Most pedophiles who act on their impulses do so by manipulating children and gradually desensitizing them to inappropriate behavior. Then they escalate it. Pedophiles are able to do this because in most cases they already know the children or have access to them. In about 60% to 70% of child sexual abuse cases involving pedophiles, the perpetrator is a relative, neighbor, family friend, teacher, coach, clergyman, or someone else in regular contact with the child. Strangers are less likely to sexually abuse children — although they are more likely to commit violent assaults when they do.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia

[albeto]

Hi Albeto,

Reading your post, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me; we seem to be in agreement on many points of this.

Could be. 

I hope you don't mind my using this as an opportunity to sharpen my reasoning skills anyway.  I'm not really sure where I stand, I just desire to identify and reject ideas that have always been held "just because," as many of them (for me personally) are rooted in religion with a moral code that depends on an external source of justice.  I reject that now and I find many of my otherwise "natural" ethics rationalized only because of that.  I'm not suggesting pedophilia is an appropriate relationship model now just because it's rejected in my former religion, but if it's going to be inappropriate, the reasons have to be grounded in more than "just because" or "ew."  I know that's not what you're advocating, I'm just trying to explain myself and my purpose in this discussion.  Still, I hope you don't mind.  I do appreciate your attention to my questions. 

I'm sure it is; the test-case is a 31-year-old man, because that's Joe's age, and an 11-year-old girl, because that was the age of the model he posted in the other thread as an example of someone he found sexually attractive.

She was 11?  Wow, coulda fooled me!  I recall hanging out with a friend of mine in a hostel when he started flirting with this woman.  She was cute as a button, laughed at all his jokes, they got along really well.  She made some comment some teen movie star (Corey Haimes, I think) and he realized she was younger than she looked.  She was, I think 13, and he was 22 or 23 at the time.  I swear to gods she appeared at least 17 to me, and I had no reason to rationalize her looking older.  He was crushed because her age was a turn-off for him, but the attraction he first felt was completely involuntary.   A photo of an 11 year old who looks like she could be 16 doesn't suggest to me that 11 is the general attractive age.  I live in the United States and most 11 year olds still look more like kids than adults to me.  In Asia I think that's even more the case (just guessing), but I also get the impression most mature Asian women have the kind of body structure that could pass as teens in the U.S.

It's a fact that step-children are more likely to be sexually abused by their parents than biological children. That's a good reason to be vigilant in those scenarios, and it's why adoption agencies' enquiries are so intense.

Vigilant to the point of denial of privileges just because they could be abused?  Why the special privileges for step-dads, priests, teachers, and therapists (everyone but pedophiles) then? What's the difference?  Why are pedophiles more dangerous given the same conditions as others who could (and do) abuse certain relationships? 

That's not the same as being a parent 24/7.

True enough, but my job was considerably more awkward and potentially dangerous than anything I've done as a parent.  It's part of being a mature, responsible adult to compartmentalize one's life into appropriate outlets.  Women expect that from their gynecologists, men expect that from their proctologists, patients expect that from their therapists, step and foster daughters expect that from their step and foster fathers.  Not everyone gets it, and I don't mean to trivialize this because the trauma is great and can (and often does) last a lifetime. 

But I'm not addressing the trauma, I'm addressing the idea that pedophiles are in some way less capable than non-pedophiles when it comes to suppressing an involuntary, physiological response to a given stimuli.  I don't yet know why that is.  Is it just an assumption because pedophilia is a natural kind of taboo and we naturally feel repulsed at the idea?  If so, that feeling isn't evidence for the legitimacy of the claim.  Are pedophiles more prone to abusing people they are attracted to than other groups who could (and sometimes do) abuse relationships in which they have the emotional and mental upper hand?  It could be the case,  I just don't know that we really have the data on this one way or the other. 

[

You may consider it so, but I'd still like to know your answer.

I don't doubt that.  It's a loaded question, though, and a red herring, and appeal to emotion, fear, and other subtle and not so subtle problems.

[albeto]

Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way.

Thanks for the info and the link.  Do you think this statistic is accurate with regards to "most people with pedophilic tendencies" or are they basing this statistic on those people who were identified as pedophiles?  I'm thinking, like is common with many groups, members don't come forward to identify themselves (maybe they don't recognize the identification themselves?).  I can only imagine there are more pedophiles than we have information about, and that as a group the general behaviors and thought processes are relatively unknown, but that's just speculation on my part. 

[Gnu Ordure]

This has come up too many times for me to reply to each individual instance, but I must say it's disturbing how many of you seem to think that simply being attracted to children means you'd rape one if you had the chance. That's just beyond stupid.

Who has said that, Joe? I know I never have.

Seems like another of your strawmen.

[pianodwarf]

Do you think this statistic is accurate with regards to "most people with pedophilic tendencies" or are they basing this statistic on those people who were identified as pedophiles?  I'm thinking, like is common with many groups, members don't come forward to identify themselves (maybe they don't recognize the identification themselves?).  I can only imagine there are more pedophiles than we have information about, and that as a group the general behaviors and thought processes are relatively unknown, but that's just speculation on my part.

I wonder about that myself.  I know that if I were a pedophile, I would almost certainly not disclose the fact to anyone at all, regardless of the circumstances.

[Quesi]

Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way.

Thanks for the info and the link.  Do you think this statistic is accurate with regards to "most people with pedophilic tendencies" or are they basing this statistic on those people who were identified as pedophiles? I'm thinking, like is common with many groups, members don't come forward to identify themselves (maybe they don't recognize the identification themselves?).  I can only imagine there are more pedophiles than we have information about, and that as a group the general behaviors and thought processes are relatively unknown, but that's just speculation on my part.

Bold mine

Good question Albeto.  I don't pretend to know that answer to that question.  I've always thought that priests were a very interesting example.  I believe that they enter the priesthood genuinely believing that they will commit themselves to a life of celibacy.  And I assume that most of them do.  However, we are all familiar with the fact that a large number of boys and girls are molested annually by members of the priesthood. 

I also think that it is interesting that the article makes a distinction between what it classifies as those who fit the "strict definition of pedophilia" and other offenders. 

It goes on to say:  Researchers also do not agree about what proportion of child sex abusers are pedophiles. Other types of offenders include sexually curious or abusive adolescents who molest younger children, hypersexual adults who opportunistically target children, and people who act impulsively (rather than in response to erotic attachment) under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Moreover, about half of all child sexual abuse victims are 12 to 17 years old (postpubescent), so their assailants don't meet the strict definition of pedophilia.

The study seems to be very "first world" based in that it does not take into account the increased sexual assault rate, especially of children, in situations in which there are extreme power imbalances, such as war zones, refugee camps, prison-like situations that house children, slavery, forced marriage, etc.  Nor does it address the first world power imbalance situations, such as the study on sexual abuse in foster care that I linked earlier today. 

What I do know is that there is a huge disconnect between the number of sexual assaults committed against children and teens, and the prosecutions for those assaults.  The vast majority of perpetrators go unidentified, and the vast majority of assaults go unreported.  The foster care case illustrates that in the most extreme terms. 

[jaimehlers]

I wonder how much of the sexual activity that pedophiles engage in requires an actual child to be present?

For example, let's say you have someone with a less-standard sexual fetish, say they get sexually aroused by transgender transformation or humanoid furries.  Neither of those fetishes is likely to ever have someone who can truly satisfy it (not until someone comes up with an over-the-counter genetic transformation drug or something equally unplausible).  So it's entirely possible that the full extent of their sexual activity may amount to no more than masturbation to erotic stories and/or pictures on the subject matter.

The point being that some, perhaps many or even most pedophiles may satisfy their sexual urges in a similar (safe) fashion.

[Quesi]

I wonder how much of the sexual activity that pedophiles engage in requires an actual child to be present?

For example, let's say you have someone with a less-standard sexual fetish, say they get sexually aroused by transgender transformation or humanoid furries.  Neither of those fetishes is likely to ever have someone who can truly satisfy it (not until someone comes up with an over-the-counter genetic transformation drug or something equally unplausible).  So it's entirely possible that the full extent of their sexual activity may amount to no more than masturbation to erotic stories and/or pictures on the subject matter.

The point being that some, perhaps many or even most pedophiles may satisfy their sexual urges in a similar (safe) fashion.

If I understand it, that is one of the main arguments for legalizing child pornography.  If Mr. Smith gets to watch videos of some little girl in Thailand getting raped, he is less likely to go in and bother his daughter's buddies when they are there for a pajama party. 

[jaimehlers]

If said child pornography involves an actual child being raped, then it should stay illegal, both to produce, to distribute, and to own.

If it's fictional (say CGI or animated), I would at least be willing to tolerate its production, distribution, and ownership.