I have been thinking about an article. The article covers a very controversial subject. Years ago, Richard Green was involved in the movement to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. I'm sure just about everyone on GA would agree with him on that and thank him for his efforts. Still, there is another sexuality that is very much frowned upon, definitely more so than homosexuality. It is a sexuality that if acted upon is, in my view, one of the most egregious crimes a person can commit. It is insidious and callous to do this. It can shatter lives forever. But what if you do not act upon it? Is it a mental disorder? I once thought so, but lately I've had to re-evaluate my opinion. What am I talking about? I'm talking about pedophilia. Personally, I am NOT a pedophile, and I definitely despise anyone who acts on such a proclivity. But there are many who do not act upon it, and while it is certainly not good to be a pedophile, I do not think it is a mental illness anymore than being gay is, which is not at all.

Why have I come to this conclusion? Well, let's just say I've befriended someone that happens to be a pedophile. I don't like that he's a pedophile, but I accept it and accept him as a person. This doesn't mean there hasn't been a few arguments along the way. Recently we talked about whether or not it was a mental illness. Part of me has it ingrained that pedophilia is mental illness, but I decided to find out what experts might say about it. I came across this article. In it, he mentions three discourses: legal, moral, and medical. He argues that while it is illegal to act on such attractions as well as immoral, but it is not a medical (specifically psychological) illness.

I can see where he's coming from, but it all honesty, I disagree with it at one point. I think someone who acts on the attraction is mentally ill. You'd have to be completely deranged to hurt an innocent child. But if you can sperate your attraction from acting upon it and understand that it is wrong and why it is wrong and would never want to hurt a child like that, then the person is not mentally ill.

As for anyone who might disagree about acting upon it, let me combat your sentiments right now. It is perfectly acceptable to have sex with another adult, someone who happens to be a peer and is capable of understanding every aspect of the act and is mentally capable of handling and having a completely positive and fulfilling reaction to it. Children are NOT our peers. Therefore, they cannot consent to sexual acts, and adults are not to coerce them, threaten, or outright rape them at any time for any reason. At least one of three actions is required in order to have sex with a child, and it is also immoral to do any of those three things to another adult in order to have sexual relations with the adult. Forcing someone into sex through coercion, threats, or just outright violating the person's body is a crime and rightfully so.

Whenever, you have consensual sex with another adult, it is an implied or verbal contract with that person, a person who is of free will to enter into it. That's how one would describe consensual sex versus non-consensual sex. Minors are not allowed to be parties to contracts with one exception, which is certain money transfers like signing checks or exchanging money for certain goods and services, and there is usually a requirement that a parent's name is on the account. No other exceptions, as far as I know, are made for minors when it pertains to contracts. Why am I bringing up consent? An agreement is said to be, "An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law." The key word is agreement. And because sexual consent is an agreement by definition, it is synonymous with contract.

Contracts and consent have something else in common. The basis for anti-rape laws is actually in property law, and most contracts involve property. At the time is was more of a sexist thing where men had their wives as a piece of property. Of course, now it is clear, at least in western society, that one's own body is considered one's own property, and if you violate this property in any way, you have committed a crime against the said person. With a child, the ownership is normally the parents'. However, children are also protected by law from sexual (and other types of) abuse by a parent, so in a way, the child's possession of his or her own body, trumps that of a parent in at least this aspect.

Conclusion- I have made two main points in this blog entry. 1) While anyone who acts upon sexual attraction to children is certainly not in his or her right mind, someone who has the attraction and does not act upon it with the knowledge that it would be wrong to do so and why is not clinically insane. 2) Contract and property law is the basis for which rape of any kind is criminal offense and why children are not considered competent to enter into any type of legal agreement or contract due to an inability to fully understand the consequences of their actions. I'd also like to add, that my understanding of the legal system is basic, and these thoughts are based upon limited knowledge. Others are much more capable of explaining these laws and their reasons for existence. Also, my knowledge of psychology is limited.

Note: I've left comments enabled for now, but please keep the comments civil. Otherwise, I'll feel the need to lock them. I understand that it's a difficult subject for many, and let me also remind everyone that I have been abused too. I have also went through the pain of having a close family member going to prison for acting on such inclinations, and it was the most painful experience of my life. As an added disclaimer, if you are struggling with it, please contact Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Maryland. Acting on your feelings is a violation of state and (in some cases) federal law. Such actions can destroy children's lives along with that of their families' and your own.