Band on the Run, while I do not know of a brain scan that can "show" or diagnose pedophilia, there has been some interesting brain scan studies which demonstrate clear differences. I can't speak to the credibility of these studies, but they are interesting:
Pedophilic perpetrators showed a significant decrease of right amygdalar volume, compared with healthy
controls (P=.001). We observed reduced gray matter in the right amygdala, hypothalamus (bilaterally), septal regions,
substantia innominata, and bed nucleus of the striae terminalis. In 8 of the 15 perpetrators, enlargement of
the anterior temporal horn of the right lateral ventricle that adjoins the amygdala could be recognized by routine
qualitative clinical assessment. Smaller right amygdalar volumes were correlated with the propensity to commit
uniform pedophilic sexual offenses exclusively (P=.006) but not with age (P=.89).
Ref - Brain Pathology in Pedophilic Offenders - ARCH GEN PSYCHIATRY/VOL 64, JUNE 2007
This paper references the above study as well as the author's own:
So far, three research groups have published structural MRI studies of pedophiles: my own group at CAMH in Canada (Cantor et al., 2008), and two other groups, both in Germany (Schiffer et al., 2007; Schiltz et al., 2007). The CAMH team compared large groups of pedophilic men with men who committed nonsexual offenses; we found that the pedophilic men had significantly less tissue in two wide-spread regions of the brain. These two regions (called the superior fronto-occipital fasciculus and the right arcuate fasciculus) are not at all what previous researchers had expected to find (including us). Instead of being in charge of any specific function of the brain (such as self-control or sexual response), these particular brain structures are made up of “cables” (or axons) that connect other brain regions. This suggests the possibility that sexual attraction to children versus adults is not caused by some difference in any one region of the brain, but in the way that multiple regions work together. Neuroscientists refer to this as a partial “disconnection syndrome.”
When comparing pedophilic and nonpedophilic men, one must remain careful not to confuse cause with effect. That is, one must consider carefully whether the brain differences we detected cause pedophilia or whether some aspect of being pedophilic caused the brain differences. Previous research findings suggests that it is more likely for the brain differences to be causing pedophilia than for the other way around...
Ref - MRI research on pedophilia: What ATSA members should know - ATSA Forum, Fall 2008
Sir82, stated "a child is, by law, incapable of giving consent. Sex with a child is always, 100% of the time, rape." That is a popular oversimplification of the law, at least so far as it applies in my country. As EndofMysteries pointed out, even the term child varies. In Canada, what I would commonly call a "child" can give consent. Consider the law in Canada:
- Age of consent is 16 years for all sexual activity (raised from 14 in 2008) EXCEPT
- Age of consent is 18 years when the activity exploits the young person (parent, coach, teacher, etc) EXCEPT
- Age of consent is 14 years when the partner is less than 5 years older and the relationship is not exploitative (parent, coach, teacher, etc) EXCEPT
- Age of consent is 14 when the partner is more than 5 years older AND they are legally married ("solemnization" of marriage requirements) EXCEPT
- Age of consent is 12 years when the partners is less than 2 years older and not in a relationship of trust (babysitter, etc)
Under many systems of law the concern is less about "consent" at some magic number than about differences in power and authority. Children will, by and large, be sexual. Denying any ability to give consent criminalizes and victimizes all manner of sexual activity that is a frequent part of social development.
The law is a poor form of moral argument. Law should be informed by societal values, not the other way around. As a rather crude analogy - "The law states a youth is, by law, under 21. Therefore giving beer to someone under 21 is always irresponsible and negligent". Frankly, the rest of Earth (Muslim countries notwithstanding) will collectively roll their eyes.
I think discussions about consent and cause/effect are beside the point. Harmful activity should be proscribed. As a thought experiment, if it could be 100% proven that a 12 year old gave full consent in full understanding, would that make it right? I would say the answer is no.
As an aside, the concept of "consent" can be a mental tool used by non-violent offenders - they generally work away at getting enough "consent" to satisfy their conscience - to allow themselves to offend. The illustration I use is with the drug heroin. A damaged child may crave it, may ask for it, even beg for it. It is still morally outrageous, unacceptable, and illegal to give it. In my experience, pedophiles with a conscience (a concept that will be hard for some to grasp) generally agree that giving heroin to a child is wrong under any circumstance; they then make the logical connection that the "consent" they thought they had was beside the point entirely. Of course, most people know that a large part of being an adult is curbing the "consent" of youth.
To the original thread topic, sexual abuse is, almost certainly, now much lower than at any time in recorded history. Herotodus spoke of how the Persians had taken up the practice with gusto when they learned it from the Greeks. And Herotodus is, as they say, the Father of History.
