A mistake in the article: most of paedophiles were not abused in childhood. Mistakes in the comments: paedophiles do differ in brain structure according to dr. Cantor researches. Something like parental and sexual needs are cross-wired. Homosexuals and lesbians differ too, interestingly in different ways.
And by definition paedophiles are those who _sexually_ attracted to children, no matter how empathic or selfish they are. Since most people are not bad persons i guess most paedophiles are too but bad persons also exist. Also i disagree with today’s puritanical and hateful propaganda and newspeak used: that any sexual contact with kids is rape and necessarily harmful, that romantic feelings and romantic behavior toward kids is grooming with the only goal to have sex, etc. It all ignores science and known facts. That does not necessarily mean that it should be legalized though due to high risk of mistreatment, non-pedophile opportunists, etc. But the whole topic is obviously overheated and hate is irrational.
Also “what?” poster mentioned other questionable topics from today’s propaganda like child porn consumption and informed consent. To support child porn market you have to pay for it, but how non-commercial consumption differ from consumption of other shocking content from the internet (e.g. violence with minors involved), how it is more dangerous, etc. And why banning consumption of some types of information is considered as a good thing while it makes any independent research about the subject illegal.
E.g. when people talk about child porn they are talking about the subject nobody has right to see and hardly many of them know that even nudism or erotic is often labeled and prosecuted as child porn. Though in Britain even possession of “obscene porn” is forbidden (i guess you can technically be prosecuted for possession of internet meme “two girls 1 cup”) and extremist literature too (no need to know how bombs work for a law-abiding person, isn’t ot?)
And informed consent what is it? Why simple knowing that something enjoyable/not enjoyable is not enough to consent? While religious education does not require consent. Even painful circumcision does not require consent. I guess that if actions are enjoyable then the most harm is done by further social indoctrination and hence real abuse is done by those who persuade people that they were used, are victims and should feel bad. Again, i am not sure if such actions should be legal but current level of dogmatism draws all such cases as violent rape (while most are not), all children as victims (while it cannot be harmful in all cases) and all paedophiles as monsters (while many of them are not even violent).
Btw interestingly zoophiles are prosecuted too. And with the same argument: informed consent. Like if it has any sense to use it regarding to animals. Like if cat owners ask consent when castrate their cats. Or animals give consent to appear cooked on the table, Why sex with animals is considered as necessarily violence then? The problem is that society still monitors anything that relates to sex much closer than anything also. And ideals that opposed to sexual repression and that were shared by LGBT-like organisations decades ago now are forgotten and worked only for gays and lesbians. I am afraid that it may be not forever and sexual repression can turn against them again in 50-100 yrs.