# Pedophilia: Innate or Learned?

Pedophilia is the "persistent sexual interest in children (prepubescent)". An official diagnosis of pedophilia, according to the International Classification of Diseases, requires an individual has consistent sexual thoughts, urges, and illusions of children and to have either acted on these urges or be clearly distraught by these feelings. The diagnosee cannot be a child (pre-pubertal) and extreme caution is urged when assessing an adolescent for this disorder. Pedophilia is problematic, dangerous, and is a contributing factor behind many sexual crimes committed against children.
Pedophilia is entwined with the Nature vs. Nurture debate in criminology. The nature vs. nurture debate concerns the source or cause of criminality, especially as one ages into accountability for their behavior. The "nature" aspect puts fault on one's genetic predispositions. On the other hand, the "nurture" aspect is concerned with one's upbringing, living conditions, and environment. Throughout history, several theories have been posed whether nature or nurture cause crime. In this review, two theories will be analyzed and applied regarding pedophilia.

#### Nature versus Nurture

The first theory is atavism, as applied to the field of criminology (circa 1870) by Cesare Lombroso. He argued criminals possess atavistic anomalies (physical features such as sloping forehead, ears of unusual size, asymmetry of the face, prognathism, excessive length of arms, asymmetry of the cranium) that are passed genetically.. Lombroso's eugenic theories were disapproved throughout Europe (notably by Alexandre Lacassagne and Charles Goring) because they lacked rigorous statistical comparisons of criminals versus non-criminals. Nonetheless Lombroso laid an important road to studying criminals themselves rather than merely the crime.
On the other hand, the social learning theory states that people are not inherently criminals but exhibit criminal-like behavior due to their upbringing or environment. For example, a son who watches his father abuse his mother might do the same later in life when dealing with his significant other. Notable psychologists, such as Albert Bandura, advocated for this theory, where people perceive the rewards for a crime higher than its consequences. The social learning theory expanded upon the "tremendous complexity of human responsiveness" by adding an additional element to the learning process: learning via rewards and consequences.
The nature vs. nurture debate in criminology has been a heated topic in the world of psychology and criminology for centuries. A common conclusion is neither origin is solely responsible for criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is a combination of both nature and nurture done in a very "complex and not yet fully understood [way]" which leads to offensive or law-breaking behavior. Some scientists believe that the debate is unhelpful or outdated, while others hesitate that leaning to one-side over the other may fuel bias. For example, many people were forced sterile by scientific racism. Alternatively, too much emphasis on social conditions could cease progress for those riddled in poverty or other environmental disadvantages.

#### Studies

A 2009 study done on the etiology of pedophilia by researcher Juan Antonio Becerra García of the International University of La Rioja found several "structural deteriorations" within brain regions that were essential to sexual development, including a smaller right amygdala (less control over ability to inhibit certain behaviors), a significant decline of gray matter in the hypothalamus (which leads to a score of neurological issues, including memory loss and other cognitive impairments), and a decline in the activity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (which leads to poor executive functioning). Another review of the disorder published in 2015 affirmed that other studies conducted on pedophiles found similar findings, including a reduction of inhibition and executive functioning. However, García concluded that there really wasn't a "determinant explanation" for one to become a pedophile. García suggested that the brain abnormalities were brought about during neurodevelopment through "adverse events” but emphasizes that these cognitive shifts in the brain do not render an individual free from such horrific sexual crimes, if one were to act on such impulses.
Another study published in 2018, completed by Dr. Kelly M Babchishin and a team of researchers in Sweden, also mentioned that previous studies have found that pedophiles generally have a lower cognitive ability than non-pedophilic offenders and physical abnormalities that relate to neurological deficiencies. However, Dr. Babchishin's study of 655 Swedish men convicted of child sex crimes yielded inconclusive and inconsistent results in pinpointing any "risk markers" for pedophilia, stating that there was no "clear evidence for the specificity of early risk markers for pedophilia". Although there are patterns of neurological deficiencies in pedophiles, no specific trait or gene propels an individual to sexual attraction of children.
It is a myth that pedophiles arise from sexual abuse; this belief cannot be scientifically substantiated. Criminologist Richard Kelly affirms that a sizeable number of pedophiles "were abused themselves as children" but refuses to support the notion that pedophilia is brought on by past sexual abuses because it is "very difficult" to provide sufficient backing for such claims.

#### Conclusion

We do not have sufficient evidence to define the cause of pedophilia. Although poor executive functioning may be evident, this does not automatically cause a person to have sexual desires for children. In fact, arguing so would be a causal fallacy. There is also little evidence to support pedophilic attractions are solely brought on by one's environment. Pedophilia seems to be a mix between nature (one's body) and nurture (one's experiences). It is clear that more research should be done in this field.