Indianguy, you're just awesome. I hope those guys (or ladies) can get the help they need too.

I think it should also say something about the Cracked community that your comment has only upvotes (at this point) and no downvotes at all.

I'm hesitant. The fact that they say they are not trying to normalize it yet they try to call themselves by the more innocent sounding name of minor attracted persons makes me uncomfortable. Should we encourage people with the urges to seek help and also make that help more available? Yes. Should we fund further research? Yes. Should we be accepting of them and their urges? I don't know. My gut tells me no. I have three kids though, so that makes it harder to think in anyway other than "destroy all threats".

Yutz, theres a difference between trying to normalize it, and trying not to get associated with child molesters because it makes it more difficult to get help before there's any actual victims.
There really need to be a difference between people who have acted illegal, and people who can't help but think about illegal things, but the media just doesn't difference enough.

We know almost nothing about this so how can we even know that it is something that can be controlled indefinitely. Should we let them be teachers or run day cares? Should they be allowed anywhere near children? We have no effective treatments and no idea what causes it.

@yutz, that's entirety the point. How can we learn or improve if we don't study? Does the desire to murder your boss who cheated you on your vacation time make you a murderer? Does having thoughts of raping a woman make you a rapist? No, or I'd hope not. Acting on desires js what we should punish. Not having desires.

If you actually have a desire to murder or rape then that is a bit effed. Those aren't normal urges to have. Neither are urges to have sex with children. Of course it isn't the same as commuting the crime, but this is some kind of disorder and it isn't harmless. It is very much so a potential threat. It is a conversation we should have though, so that people smarter than you and I can figure out a humane and effective way of dealing with them and helping them.

There's points going both ways on this. I agree with the article and think that there should be professional, non-judgemental help available for those who earnestly want to rid themselves of these desires, if that can be achieved.

But put yourself in any parent's shoes. You have a young child, say below the age of 5. One day, you're having coffee with a friend and he or she breaks down in tears and tells you they have attractions for children. Even if you're one of the most tolerant, open-minded people in your neighbourhood, on the one hand you'd probably help your friend seek treatment for this mental illness... but on the other hand, you know that the relationship between them and your child is irrevocably altered.

It's also not something you can turn the tables on the parents to make this their fault. "Oh, you're not comfortable with someone who is struggling with Minor Attraction hanging around your child? I find that deeply offensive and bigoted!" That doesn't work here. You can allow people who feel this way to seek the help that they need, and they need the guarantee of anonymity. But if you decide to inform others, you can't play the blind ignorance card if the relationship dynamic changes or is even severed.

half the point of civilisation is to create an environment where people CAN'T act on those impulses, not to just ignore them and hope they go away and then prosecute when things (inevitably) go wrong, most people will have illegal urges, like murdering the boss (BASTARD HAD IT COMING!) but we don't act on those, most are caused by short term environmental factors, but those which are not, like sexual attraction to children, should be studied and treated.
and of course the rest of the point of civilisation is it's warmer here and there are less barbarian hordes

In America. If authorities find pornographic video or images on your computer that look like the person is under 18, they bring in a pediatrician to guess. if he guesses under 18 you are guilty. A guy in New jersey was on trial for child pornography and the 26 year old pornstar flew in to testify on his behalf, and he was exonerated. Not as bad as Australia, but still...

@thatindianguy, thanks for putting this into words. This was a very difficult article to read, in a good way. This is the kind of issue that evokes a visceral sick feeling, and I think that's part of why there's so much trouble in examining it. But by not understanding why it happens and how to prevent it, we (as a society) may wind up doing a greater disservice, not only to those adults suffering from genuine mental illness, but to children who may become victims.

The priority needs to be protection and prevention. And the best way to do that is to understand, and study, and stop the problem at its root, long before anyone gets hurt.

Thanks Robert Evans and interviewees for a troubling and thought-provoking article.

thatindianguy- a well thought out comment, featuring reasonable, mature responses that cover a variety of points pertaining to this intelligent article.

CommentPlasty- "It's 'to'".

I think we can reasonably assume who is the better person here.

Yeah I felt the same way about this article, pretty much. Also want to pass on my thanks for it was a very interesting read and... just, anyone who thinks that the priority should NOT be "protecting children"... I just have to think that's the most f'd-up thing of all. The priority should ALWAYS be to protect the victims, always. There is nothing else that should take precedence over that! And if doing that involves preventing victims from becoming victims in the first place... by helping people with urges not respond to those urges... then that has to be the best thing all-around! Stop it before it happens. This ought to be the golden ideal of a justice system - to prevent things from getting to a point where they're that far-bad in the first place. Everyone can take their petty revenge fantasies and go eat a lemon because those things rely on kids being hurt. A fantasy that relies on a kid being hurt should not be the basis of how society deals with a problem. You should want the kid not to be hurt in the first place. With some people, I truly wonder if they even DO want that...

My abusers were already past that point when they did what they did to me when I was little. Well past it. I have a million revenge fantasies against them involving all of the worst tortures I can think of. But I recognise those for what they are, and what they aren't - and what they aren't are helpful. What would've been helpful would've been if these people never became active abusers in the first place. I say that and I have no love for them, none whatsoever. I don't care that they might've had better lives for it. I don't care - about their life quality, at all. What I care about is that they wouldn't've done what they did, and what they didn't only do to me, but to many other children at the time too.

To people asking "should we make them teachers?"...well, it sounds to me like the pedophiles interviewed in this article would probably say "please don't". Same with the person who asked what about a person with a child whose friend breaks down and tells them that they have these urges. By all means, avoid having your children around your friend, and your friend will probably be the first person to tell you so...for your child's sake, but also for your friend's. This is the point that you're missing from the article: you're imagining these people as someone who just can't wait to be around kids so they can molest them, but non-offending pedophiles don't particularly want to hang out with the biggest trigger for the urges of which they are ashamed. There's no controversy here. Also, nobody is saying that people who are uncomfortable with pedophiles, even non-offending ones, are bigots, because nobody is saying that it is a valid lifestyle, and because the (non-offending) pedophiles are uncomfortable with themselves. This is a straw man argument. Nobody is saying "hey, let's just let them do what they love!"...people are saying "let's give them a safe avenue for treatment of their illness".

I feel awful for laughing at this!

Hey DoglovingJim, That's NOT funny. It's not very funny at all. In fact I didn't laugh much. Maybe a little snicker... OK, it's a little funny. Well, alright, it was funny. Goddamit DLJ, you crack me up.

Do they pay taxes?

Jesus, for the past couple of minutes I've been laughing at this, stopping because of how horrible it is, then start laughing again. Gods, please don't smite me now

I am now a worse person.

3 barks means laughing!

Sorry.... I just came from the zoophile article and that story's Dog Loving Jim... nevermind, you had to read it to believe it.

Sorry... but, WHY exactly is this supposed to be funny? I don't see any humour in this. It's a completely pathetic joke, trivialising a serious problem... there's no clever way it's put, no actual joke in there for it to bounce off of, no comedy timing, no nothing... I don't get it at all.

You know what, simply saying "I'm a worse person for laughing at this" don't make it magically-then-okay to laugh and clap at it deliberately and encourage it in a comment. It's... not... acceptable. It's awful. But it still could be funny, and awful... but that's the thing - I don't get how this one is. Seriously! I've heard terrible jokes before that were not acceptable but were also funny. I can't find anything funny in this! How is it in any way funny? Somebody point it out because I'm not getting why anybody is praising this horrible failed attempt at humour.

@Torthrodhel...I'm not going to take any ethics bait, and just answer your question as literally as I can:

Humor most often comes from an incongruity between expectation and reality, especially in cases where reality technically matches expectation literally, but not in spirit. In this case, therefore, the humor comes from the fact that the pedophiles are obeying both the law and social convention of slowing down when children are in the area, but their reasons are prurient rather than safety-minded. Therefore, in the hypothetical scenario of the joke, following the law, and social convention, has the opposite effect than the expectation/hope: rather than making children safer (from the danger of high-speed vehicles), it actually makes children (arguably) less safe (by being exposed to potential sexual abuse). The subversion of this expectation results in a laugh. An admittedly uncomfortable laugh (such a joke would be classified as "Black Comedy"), but a laugh nonetheless. You likely did not find it funny because, having a history with sexual abuse that the rest of us don't have, you are "primed" to perceive an adult slowing down in the presence of children as being dangerous by itself. You, therefore, do not have the expectation that is subverted by the joke, and ergo, the humor reaction did not occur. Humor is subjective in this way, and unfortunately that often means that people with non-standard life experiences are never fully able to participate in all humor. As a side note, a person whose child was killed by a car speeding through a school zone is probably inclined to agree with you.

I made this account just to say you made laugh. XD

I'd love to see the legal definition of "looking under 18" and what the cutoff for cup sizes is.

A-cup sized models are not allowed, I believe the "looking" part is down to discretion.

qwalale12 - i heard of this some time ago - i think it cup B or C minimum. Kind of discriminating to flat chicks. I wonder if the law was lobbied by silicone-tits manufacturers.

Apparently the cut-off is a C-cup, which is really ridiculous because there are plenty of grown adults with tiny boobs and plenty of teenagers with big ones, it's not like tree rings or anything.

hahaha I love the idea of comparing breasts to tree rings. But yea, I remember learning about Australia's rule and going "What?!" My ex was barely an A-cup and I would never confuse her with a child. Everything except her breasts screamed adult (face, butt, hips, attitude).

Yeah this isn't exactly true. The look younger stuff is but there isn't actually anything in there about breast sizes. The law is pretty much if they look to young even if their not then they won't give it a rating. As such a forty year old woman with a cup sized breasts isn't going to get in trouble for doing porn. Now a 18 year old girl who has a small appearance and as such small breasts could be deemed to look to young. But there is nothing specific in the laws about breast sizes.

I'm an A-cup, 23, but I look 14. On the other hand, I look like a 14-year-old guy, which is sort of what I was going for? The guy bit, not the 14-year-old...

llama612, cracked did a piece on this law a couple of years back if memory serves correctly. I can't link it but I'm fairly sure a specific cup size was mentioned.

I know I saw that articale and at the time there was all this stuff going around about it. But in truth there is no actual law that states if a model has an a cup breast size then it is illegal for her to do porn. A quick google search of it gives more details. So legally nothing is said about breasts, but that Australian Classifacation Board hasn't actually made a comment about if when determining a girls age if her breast size is considered. They do admit that they judge this on the girls appearance but won't say if girls with small breasts are specifically targeted. So in other words while officially there is no law on the books about breast sizes that doesn't mean unoffically they don't just put anyone with small breasts on the no no list.

I'd say that's going full retard. If they want to go full retard with afterburners activated, I suggest putting any man with Gwen Stefani pics on his hard drive on the sex offender registry.

see the bright side: your porno will be booby-enhanced

I hope that isn't true. I know of at least one girl who had watermelons at twelve, I don't want some genius arguing the opposite to everyone's complaints here.

I agree with what you say, but hate how you chose to say it. Using the word "retard" is a slur, and an ugly one.