To answer the question of whether pedophilia is a sickness or a crime, it is neither. It is popular and common to use the word to mean both or either, but that is complete and total misuse of the concept and the word, and that misuse has a major effect in ensuring the very separate topics are not handled correctly or fairly in the slightest. And I have no hope that the knot of stupidity will ever be untied in my lifetime, because the topics are valued by so many people as topics where they can feel free to rant and not dedicate one ounce of critical thought. The whole thing is dominated by witch hunters and I have been attacked numerous times for daring to address related topics with fairness, justice and logic.

I will explain why it is neither a sickness or a crime. First, it is not a sickness because the only reason it causes mental distress is because of societal intolerance. The only kind of pedophilia I would call a sickness would be where its compulsive and the person just can't help themselves but to molest or rape children practically on sight. But that sort of pedophile is exceedingly rare, pretty much like serial rapists.

Your average run-of-the-mill pedophile, someone who simply prefers pre-pubescents as sex partners, would be perfectly happy if society left them free to date and have sex with who they wanted (as in Polynesian society before the Europeans came, or even American and British societies where the age of consent was ten for hundreds of years). So while some might call their desires sick, it does not mean they are sick. They are no more sick than homosexuals, and it took society and psychology a long time to conclude that homosexuals were not sick, and that delay was simply the product of societal taboo, same as with pedophilia today.

But it has to be said that a pedophile is best defined as someone who PREFERS prepubescents. Just finding yourself attracted to prepubescents does not make one a pedophile, because if that were true, 25 percent to 33 percent of all males would be pedophiles, and the word would lose all meaning.

Next, pedophilia is not a crime because pedophilia is not an act. Only acts can be crimes. Pedophilia is sexual preference, not an act. That is why I use the term "age of consent violation" rather than lump words like pedophilia, statutory rape and rape into one confusing jumble of overlapping concepts. Its just crazy to say that, for example, Mary Kay LeTourneau raped Villi Fualau. She didn't. They had consensual sex and they loved one another. In fact, they are now legally married. Its also crazy to say that Mary Kay is a pedophile. That is for many reasons. First, when they began sexual relations, Villi was not a prepubescent. So there is zero reason to think Mary Kay prefers prepubescents since she is not accused of ever sleeping with one. Next, she never even repeated her "crime" with another person underage, so she is certainly not compulsive in that sense.

Clearly what happened with Mary Kay is that she was in love. But some segments of society don't want to accept that and all others are too weak to speak against it. So Mary Kay gets labeled a pedophile out of hand and zero rational thought behind it.

All that said, I freely admit that Mary Kay is a bit off. I think she is compulsive, but just not toward underage boys. I believe her love is genuine, but allowing herself to get knocked up by a 13 year old, particularly when she has other children to care for, indicates someone without much foresight or self-control. The woman needed mental help for that. Instead, society gave her jail, all because witch hunters have contol of this topic.

So anyway, pedophilia is a sexual preference. A sickness would be compulsive pedophilia marked by a lack of self-control over the urge. A crime would be an age of consent violation, as that would be an act, as much as I think the label of crime is over-blown. Rape is just rape, hardly matters the age of the victim. The term statutory rape is absolute garbage and should be erased from the vernacular. And age of consent violations should be called precisely that, because calling consensual sex between a 15 year old and her 18 year old boyfriend as rape, pedophilia, sexual assault, or statutory rape is grossly and seriously unfair, injust and misleading to the point of me wanting to punch people's lights out.

The concept behind statutory rape is the general consensus from scientists that the brain is not developed enough to know the consequences of your actions at that age.

For starters, no, the concept of statutory rape began in the middle ages and no related legistlation, even modern, is based on any scientific study. Frankly, you just made that up.

Next, how does brain development translate into understanding the consequence of your actions? You cannot induce a baby into a coma, wake him up when he is 25, and expect him to understand the consequences of sticking his finger into a light socket even though his brain has fully developed.

My son is two years old. He understands the consequences of touching a hot stove.

In short, that whole brain development thing is complete red herring. The brain develops yes, but no one knows what effect that has on the decision making process. They only have guesses, and those guesses tend to conform toward agenda.

Further to that, if a child was refused a bicycle on the grounds of safety, how many people would say their parents are over-reacting? Kids ride around on bicycles all the time! Do you think they understand all the consequences, such as being hit by a car? Do you think they understand the dynamics of vehicular traffic well enough to truly be safe? Please! And a bicycle is more dangerous than sex.

How many 16 year olds are driving cars?! They could kill you. You could kill them. But if you loved them and had sex with them, there is some sort of massive danger??

That's subjective, of course, however I tend to believe that the law is more towards the younger end. Just out of personal experience, I have not met too many developed minds under 25.

The age of consent has only risen, and its now well beyond puberty, which is insane and unfair, as sex becomes an imperative after puberty.

I find it preposterous that anyone would consider an early teen to be mentally sound enough for sex with an adult.

So you are saying they are mentally sound enough for sex with eachother? Or are you saying they are raping, traumatizing and manipulating eachother? What do you mean by "mentally sound" anyway? What does it have to do with sex??

It's far too likely that such relationships are ones of manipulation.

Why? Why would you assume that any person's desire for a sexual relationship with a teen is based on manipulation? Do you think the human race is generally bent on manipulation? Do you know of any relationship based on manipulation?

For centuries teens were free to marry and age disparate couples were common. Many of our grandparents and great grandparents were in such a relationship. Now suddenly its wrong and all about manipulation?

I would question the ego of any adult that needs a relationship of manipulation.
So would I. But more than that I question your lack of faith in humanity. I do not believe that most people are out to manipulate the people they are attracted to, at least not maliciously. I do not believe that being minor attracted lends itself to a desire to manipulate maliciously.

In fact, if anything, I would say the tendency would be more toward a desire to protect and care for. But its usually the bad apples that get all the press isn't it? The news is rarely about people in love. So people who read the news tend to think people are evil at heart.