Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention 1st Edition

Few would doubt that Dr. Seto's work has made very important strides in the field of sex offending and pedophilia; however, it fails as much as it succeeds. The book's strongest revision (this is the second edition) is its acknowledgement that not all pedophiles offend, and researchers and clinicians need more data and research on those that don't offend. It's very strongest part is classifying pedophilia as part of chronophilia: these are "sexual orientations of age." This alone is a major movement forward. People are attracted to what they are attracted to. We can call it anything we want, a disorder, a sickness, etc., but many people as Seto notes identify with their attraction or orientation. For those attracted to kids, this is no different. As one researcher put it, "Do we say a guy that is only attracted to blond women has a disorder?" Is not heterosexuality a factor in some sexual assaults? If not, then why is pedophilia? I think it's not much of a factor. Other factors play a role in offending.However, for all the advances and the kudos that Seto will get for this book, I cannot help think the research is tying to "have it's cake and eat it too." The book consistently conflates "pedophilia' and "sex offending", so for those that are not experts, bias experts, or new to the field, being a pedophile means being a sex offender. Seto even notes this in his book--that there is unfair stigma placed on pedophiles or what many pedophiles choose to call themselves "minor-attracted people" (I have a habit of calling people what they want to be called). Yet, he also claims that most pedophiles offend against kids. Such a claim is problematic for a few reasons. First, Seto conflates all sexual offenses. Is being caught with two illegal pictures of kids the same as molesting actual kids? Our society says yes, but it is not the same, and to say so minimizes the effects of sexual assault on kids. Not all crimes are created equal. Admittedly, Seto draws a distinction between CP possession-only offenders and "mixed" offenders, noting that though those looking at CP (possession only) are attracted to kids, they are less likely to offend against actual kids. This seems consistent with older studies that another researcher brings up, Jesse Bering: when CP was available, contact offenses against children dropped rather dramatically. Though few of us would justify CP, it is important to keep such a distinction in mind. Maybe legal pictures of kids can help those attracted cope, lead happier lives, and assist some in non-offending. Such it not considered. Nor are such things as taboo driving the taboo (daddy-daughter incest fantasy is in the top three among men), thrill seeking (looking for thrill, not really attraction), and looking as a way to self destruct (kind of like death by cop). Seto makes distinctions but only in passing.Second, many that offend against kids are situational, so attraction does not play a role for some: psychopaths and sadists, for example. Sexual attraction can also vary. It's not a this or that sum. Seto briefly addresses that not all that offend or are sexually attracted, but how can the book claim that most pedophiles offend? The truth is that most pedophiles that are caught or were previously were caught offended, so even in surveys with pedophiles, those that offended previously will be more open about offending. Those that did not offend or did not get caught will be less willing. In addition, the word "pedophile" has such a brutal stigma to it--a word Seto insists in keeping even at the cost and danger to other human beings--that those answering the survey may provide inaccurate information such as "If I am a pedophile, then I am an offender anyway". Such is important because living with one's attraction to kids can cause immense fear of being found out. So such research will likely draw more offenders than non-offenders. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You cannot work in a judicial and prison system and expect to get accurate results. Your subjects (they are not really participants) are compromised by the very environment in which they live. They may simply exaggerate and make up offenses and data, and, yes, they can lie. I probably would, too, in such environments. Yet cultural stigma blurs the truth.If you want real results, the book should have addressed attraction to minors in the culture, and that means looking at Levenson's latest work that notes there are between 16-20 "minor attracted" people in the U.S. They all may not be pedophiles, but they are attracted to people under age, whether consistently or inconsistently. Just look at the latest YouTube incident. Though the claim is pedophilia, it would be more accurate to say it's men looking. Minors can be attractive to many when people can watch them in their rooms, watch them exercising and dressing. There is critical need for research here. In addition, the latest preliminary research shows that most "minor attracted" people do not offend, unlike what Seto claims. I think that if we look at any given population, most in that population would be less severe. Seto’s focus on “the severe” with little regard to the mental health and wellness of non-offending pedophiles is shortsighted and can stifle critical research.Then there is Seto's reliance on Darwin which is very, very problematic and outdated. He claims that pedophilia is "maladaptive" because Darwin says so. Do we all recall that homosexuality was maladaptive? What about the studies that tried to justify that some races were more superior than others? So when Canter's research, research that Seto noted, determines that dumb, left-handed, short guys tend to be pedophilic, forgive me if I don't have a heart attack. Once again is this research distinguishing between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder? Which comes first, by the way? It's understandable why some would be so distressed. No one chooses their attraction. Did the Canter research distinguish between offending and non-offending? It is the ethical responsibility of these experts to be clear so that innocent people to not get harmed, even if we like to hate such people. Who talks about Darwin anymore?In this edition, again, Seto notes the perplexity of researchers in that if pedophilia is maladaptive then why is pedophilia a "human universal throughout time?" Isn't this obvious? For the same reason homosexuality and heterosexuality is persistent: it's not a maladaptation, and there are those that are exclusive and those that are non-exclusive. Gay men and many other men can reproduce. Are there no straight men that decide not to produce? Are they maladaptive? It kind of goes without saying. Attraction generally is not maladaptive. Seto makes too much of biological fact, which come to think of it, is not fact but bias following observation, and this is where his research seems weakest. Sexuality is complex, and he uses the theory that if one cannot reproduce with one, then one is maladaptive. Okay, fair enough, if we were a snails, but we are human beings. If we look at the higher-level animals that are similar to ourselves, minus the utility of human thumbs (dolphins, primates, even dogs) they play around sexually with family, friends, but seldom penetrate (even your busy dog does not go that far). Why would people be different? For example, Joe may like a prepubescent girl. Seto sees that sexual attraction as a perversion or maladaptation, yet I wonder. It is unlikely, even when we consider Seto's research, that Joe will try and mate with someone so young. I would say, he will not. Yet, she is valuable because she has nearly 2 million eggs. Now Joe may think less of a 45 year old because she has only a handful of eggs left. In terms of biological reproduction, what would one choose if one were on an island? Hmm, I am not on an island, but I will keep my "biological selection" to myself. We have to distinguish between law and civility and the real laws of nature. The foundation of Seto’s research is bound by Puritanical/Calvinist morality, not science.My point is that Seto's research fails because in some ways it is trying too hard to say pedophiles are mostly bad people. He argues that there are a few good ones, but they are still maladaptive. I think the research on paraphilia in general is very weak. Seto needs more discussion with the real experts, people that are attracted to kids, but his book has to be more empathetic, or he will never get the information he needs. Such work will do more to scare truth off than to locate it. What does a minor-attracted guy have to gain in telling if he is seen as a maladaptive sicko?And that is my problem with the research. It may seem obvious that Seto is addressing sex offending and pedophilia, so he writes about sexual offenses, but I cannot help but think that if one looks hard enough, they see what they want, even researchers. To get a better idea, we have to see attraction to children more generally in our culture. We also have to understand that the field of psychology was built on a flaw: generally, sexual behavior is mostly deviant. I am not no sure given the prevalence of paraphilia with men and with what we see online. Though such may not manifest itself into a "disorder" or "maladaptation." Wouldn't such go a long way? If some guys can look at kids, be attracted to them and not offend, then that may help us stop offending in offending individuals? Why is this not brought up more directly? In fairness, he touches on this, but the focus is too narrow.Finally, the book crashes because of Seto's insisting that that we can best measure sexual attraction and risk by attaching a device on a guy’s penis to determine his attraction to kids. He says that his clients consented. I wonder if there is such a thing as a consenting mandated client that denies his attraction to kids? Many of these guys are in the judicial system. They can choose not to do the test, but at what consequence? At best, such is ethically murky, and as a learning professional, I will never, ever use such a device on a mandated client even if he consents. This is a vulnerable group, both because they are imprisoned or on parole and that they are attracted to kids. Such is a violation of human rights as noted in the UN Charter. Sadly, the APA and psychology have a poor relationship with ethics. Such would not make any willing participant that is attracted to kids come forward. Who wants something hooked on to their intimate parts while a lab watches them watch simulated kids or child pornography (if in Canada)? Seto goes further in justifying the tests past use on minors! His argument, this is the best test we have, better than a lie detector (no disagreement there). Yet, I'd fear such being hooked up to me while watching child models on a runway or a rerun of Dance Moms. The point is that the test may be accurate, but so were many of the experiments done during the Holocaust at the cost of human beings. We don't experiment on children because it's obvious that such is inhumane, but pedophiles? Who cares. But we need to. There are other ways. I'd caution Seto not to keep such an argument.Given its justification of unethical practice because "that's the best we can do", and its continued conflation of pedophilia with sex offending while trying to justify that it is not because most do, but then claiming we don't have research on the ones that don't, leaves this researcher and learning clinician with a bad taste in his mouth. Attraction to kids is not going anywhere. We cannot continue to lock people up at the current rates, or put them on a Registry that is more a death sentence than a reasonable measure. I would strongly encourage Seto and those of you interested to reach out to those that are attracted but don't offend. You can learn a good deal from the real experts. I think it is okay to pass on this book and wait for hopefully a better edition.

This work by Dr. Seto is a unique treatise of the specialized area of treating patients who are driven to or have offended sexually against children. It is written very scientifically and is very thorough. Dr. Seto gives a clear background and clarification of the history of our understanding of pedophilia from a clinical point of view. He clearly presents much of the research findings regarding evaluation and treatment of individuals presenting these symptoms. He was careful to point out that much of what we know is from studying prison populations, which by definition, constitute a captive audience. The vast majority of persons with these urges and conflicts are in society and not in prisons. Many such individuals never offend against children, and suffer from great loneliness. A worthwhile read for professionals working in mental health.

Authoritative and comprehensive. Good review of the existing research with excellent citation of sources. Clear explanations of study results and research limitations.

In depth and useful research for those of us in the mental health professions.

¡Llegó rápido! ¡Excelente!

I am writing a thesis on pedophilia and found this book an amazing asset. Although I had already done enough research (by the time I came across this book) that I'd already come across most of the studies reported in this book, it would be THE pedophilia "bible" and the first source for anyone looking for a solid overview as well as anyone getting ready to do lengthy research on this subject.

In India they say: "It is in the mud that the Lotus Flower has its root." This book is a thought-provoking contribution to understanding relationships between adults and children. The author's dispassionate analyses and courageous observations are invaluable and an inspiring model for any scholar.The author notes that the American Psychiatric Association's "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" criteria for diagnosing pedophilia have been challenged (no data on inter-rater and test-retest reliability) (p.44), and offers this very specific definition: "In its strongest form, it reflects an exclusive preference for pre-pubescent children who show no signs of secondary sexual development, and has no interest in sexually mature adults." (p.4); but the author recognizes that there are different (i.e. milder) forms of pedophilia.The book describes how devices like the phallometer are used to measure arousal via increases in the volume of the sex organ (vasocongestion) when looking at photographs and listening to erotic audio narratives. Although many adults experience some arousal when presented with images of children, a few adults exhibit more arousal when looking at images of children than when looking at adults. This minority has been labeled "pedophile."What about the adults who are just barely non-pedophilic, i.e. their arousal to children is equal to their arousal to adults, or is only slightly less than their arousal to adults? The book doesn't address that question, which seems to me to imply that a considerable amount of arousal to children is innocuous or species-typical, and hence no further attention is called for; or perhaps discussion of that part of the findings is subject to censorship.The author mentions that, like the polygraph, the phallometer (and the equivalent device for women) isn't infallible. Such devices may result in false positives as well as false negatives. But other forms of detection, such as self-report and even criminal records, are even less reliable. Just because someone has been convicted of child sexual abuse, that doesn't make him a pedophile.The author courageously observes that not all sex offenders against children are "pedophiles" (estimated at only 50%). Some offenders are psychopaths, for example, who usually prefer adult victims but occasionally choose a child. (Surprisingly, sex offenders with adult victims score higher on psychopathy than offenders with child victims.) Conversely, not all pedophiles are sex criminals. Some adults may experience unusually strong arousal to children but never act on such feelings. Traditionally, the law only prohibits acts, not thoughts or feelings.The author also exhibits admirable humility in stating that there is "uncertainty" about children's competence to consent to sex play (my phrase) with adults. That is a welcome contrast to Finkelhor's presumptuous claim 30 years ago that children are "never" competent to consent, which was merely politically correct rhetoric - not an empirical finding. (Finkelhor did concede that sex play among same-age peers is morally acceptable.)The author also has the courage to mention more than once: there is some evidence that sexual contacts between adults and children aren't usually seriously harmful. The book describes how the U.S. Congress voted to censure the American Psychological Association for publishing that study, and the mass media's eagerness to sensationalize rare cases of sexual violence against children have a chilling effect on academic freedom and scientific research.As far as protecting children from injury, which should be everyone's primary concern: "...aggregate crime data suggest that cases of child sexual abuse have declined dramatically since the early 1990s." (p.60) That's good news but it's unclear why that has happened or what we could do to reduce that number even further. (The book offers some hopeful suggestions.)Although wide-ranging in its scope, one thing this book lacks is any mention of the Bonobo, a well-known species of ape in the Congo region. Adult Bonobos are regularly observed engaging in sex play with juvenile members of their species, and yet Bonobos are less violent than other apes and don't commit infanticide like the non-pedophilic chimpanzees (and humans) do.I don't agree with everything the author says, and I found at least one of the author's ideas a bit bizarre, but in general this book is the best treatment of the subject I've ever read. The book also features a long list of references that should persuade humble readers how much we have to learn.Now what we need is a book like this about pedophobia: how to protect children from the far greater number of deaths and serious injuries covered-up as "accidents" (choking, falling down stairs, drowning, car crashes, etc.), tragedies that have nothing to do with excessive arousal but are actually the result of parental neglect (insufficient arousal?); or the cruelty of traditional practices specifically intended to "inhibit" children's sexuality, such as female genital mutilation.

very informative

Since Seto has tried to group all the information about pedophilia and child sex abuse, I think that some information on the stigma of pedophiles as well as how this can be addressed would have been necessary.

Dr Seto has done a perfect work in this book. The best of pedophilia, of course. All the frameworks is here.

I was more than little disappointed with this book as I thought it would be much more up to date than it is. Seto uses language that is past it's sell by date and it made it frustrating to read.