From: csz55@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Christopher Wrigley)
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
Subject: Definition of paedophilia
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:06:55 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England


Subject: abuse and paedophilia

** PRE NOTE **  After I post this and responses to previous posts,
                I am not continuing this discussion any further in
                this forum, I feel it is unfair to many. I am posting
                this only to clear up some loose ends.
		I am NOT going to reply to any _posts in reponse to
                this, unless a new group is formed to discuss such
                issues.  I will only respond to e-mail

=> Hi, Chris.

Hello, Matthew.

=> We keep hearing from you of a category called paedophilia which is
=> supposed to be disjoint from sexual abuse.  In the experience and 
=> common usage of this term (see your OED), paedophilia is a strict
=> subset of sexual abuse.  If this is not how you are using the term,
=> would you please explain how you are using it.

I have received approx 20 requests to categorically define  paedophilia
in the way to which I refer.. However, I should note that the Oxford
English Dictionary does specify 'sexual _attraction' and does not
mention the word 'abuse' (please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't
have a dictionary at hand).  I do know that paedophilia does _not mean
sexual abuse. Paedophilia is a condition where adults are sexually
attracted to children.    Let us work with my interpretation....
In laymen's terms okay?

Basically, because paed's are such a diverse group, I have categorized
them into 'types'. Within these 'types' are many sub categories but too
detailed to go into here. VERY basically then;

Type '1' - also called the 'passive' paedophile, _is sexually attracted
to children. However, s/he does not engage in any genital contact. This
individual is not an offender, s/he is not breaking the law.

Type '1' activities range from kissing (to the extent of normal adults),
cuddling, and other activities which are not interpreted as being
'sexual'. This usually occurs when a close friendship has developed/
matured. These individuals seem to have a strong interest in the childs
welfare and some are horrified that they are associated with those who
abuse, molest, and worse. Few in this category may eventually engage
in sexual activity - perhaps when the child initiated. Others may not
even wait for the child to initiate but if they forced it upon the
child, they would be outside the scope of this study.   *NB On _any
account, should sexual activities develop they immediately become type
'2' _offenders.

Type '2' _offenders are sub categorized further, based on and in accord-
ance with the types of crimes they commit, their morality, periodicity,
apperception, etc, etc.  It actually gets rather complicated here so I
will not even begin to interpret it.

The categorization is necessary for type '2' because as I have mentioned
on numerous occasions previously, paedophiles have a most diverse nature

Perhaps the greatest categorization here is the power balance factor and
level of friendship between paedophile and child that we have been
discussing recently.   * NB NB *  _This is where our current debate
is centred, and *not* between type '1' and type '2'. PLEASE NOTE that
we are not arguing about paedophiles in general (do you have any
argument with type '1'?) but the *sexual* factor attached to type '2'.
THIS is why it sometimes SEEMS as though I am advocating adult sexual
activity with children, all I have been trying to point out all along is
that some paedophiles (namely, type '1') do not engage in actual sexual
activity even though they _are sexually attracted to children.

   Do you wish me to share my _personal opinion?  I know you would be 
happy with it, but then again my personal opinion is not relevant here.
Additionally, I believe it would be extremely unprofessional of me to do
this. I'm not too good at expressing my inner feelings anyhow.

Now, if I may go back to type '2' categorization for a minute, only to
_outline how we differentiate between classes of type '2' or 'active'
paedophiles:

Even though _any sexual encounter with a minor is immoral, There is a
difference between someone who might engage in sexual activities just
the once, and those who regularly have children round to their home to
partake and organize frequent sexual meetings (periodicity).

Similarly, the apperception and morality of paedophiles are also
diverse. Many have 'codes of practice' that are adhered to quite
strictly. For example, some do not have their first sexual encounter
for months, even years after the friendship has florished. At the
opposite end of the extreme there are the molesters who are not
interested in any friendship or relationship, just to manipulate
children for sex.

NB   These individuals at the opposite end of the extreme are
those who most of you have been victimised by and know most about.
Together with the nature of their abuse, absence of any friendship, and
severity of the abuse, they are more likely to get caught than those
in other categories, thus they are most in the public eye, and make up
the highest proportion of convicted court cases.

 From our study 3 years ago,   Type '1' paedophiles accounted for a
higher proportion of all the cases my colleague and I interviewed.

It should be noted that we _were specifically looking to interview
persons who were sexually attracted to children but for moral/legal
reasons either engaged minimumly or did _not actively engage in the
sexual part of the relationship. No prisoners or ex-prisoners were part
of the study. Our sample consisted of members who subscribed to a paed
organisation.     (Sample 68 -- mostly male, few female)

Of the higher proportion that were type '1', approximately a third said
they would _never become sexual active with a child, not even if the
child initiated.

(*note*   I apologise for non specific approximations, I am not allowed
to publically disclose the actual figures. I do have interesting
findings. eg. Those who are married, have kids, hetrosexual/homosexual,
etc.   If you e-mail me with a request, I will post them to you.)

Hope this helps... and errm... corrects the rather nasty impression I
caused myself.  If I inadvertently included other clinical terms here
that you do not understand, please ask!!

		Chris
__
Christopher Wrigley
                                 "Words are sometimes used to conceal
University of Keele, England        rather than reveal one's feelings."
JANET - csz55@uk.ac.keele.