Dear Dr. James:
I have two questions I would like answers to. First question: Why is
there no cure for pedophilia attraction?
Secondly, will there ever be a cure?
I have read that white matter is one of the problems causing the
disorder. So, why can’t we just add more
white matter, for example? If we, as
humans, can solve so many problems, I don't see why we shouldn’t be able to
solve this one in some way in the near future.
@fadelsadel via twitter
Hi, @fadelsadel.
Thanks again for letting me share your question: I think a lot of people
are interested in knowing exactly the same things!
For your first question: I think it ultimately boils down
there not being any funders—either public research agency or private
philanthropist—who have taken this on as a goal. Most people (very understandably) have strong
emotions when it comes to this topic, and they fear and avoid any whiff of the
stigma surrounding it. However, in my experience, only little education on the
topic is needed before most people recognize how much we stand to gain, and how
much suffering (nevermind financial expense) stands to be saved. We need a public health official or a Bill
Gates type to recognize what could be done if we (first) just faced down the
stigma of discussing this rationally.
For your second question: I could never say never. It’s amazing to think that it was only 10
years ago that we even established pedophilia to be a neurological phenomenon
at all. Currently, it still looks like
pedophilia emerges from atypical connectivity among brain regions that
identify/perceive social stimuli as sexy.
If governments and research funders made a serious effort to figure out
how the sex response system of the brain worked, then we might be in a better
position to know which of the ever-emerging tools from neuroscience could be
applied. Moreover, the more we know
about how it develops, the earlier we might be able to detect it, and the
earlier something is detected, the easier it is to influence. I want to add, however, that these are
fundamentally important questions of bioethics related to the science of this
topic: Many people have discussed these
issues with regard to converting homosexuals to heterosexuals, but not with
regard to converting pedophiles or others whose sexual interest pattern (unlike
homosexuality) cannot be enacted without risk of harm.
Although it seems logical, just adding white matter isn’t as
simple as it might sound. Brain
development starts very early after conception, and it undergoes very many
phases ultimately leading to each point in the brain connecting to just the
right other point of the brain. Interestingly,
the infant and childhood brain is quite “over-connected.” After childhood,
substantial pruning of white matter occurs.
In adulthood, brain cells (the neurons) do not divide and make new brain
cells like other types of cells. The various
signals that cells used to determine the direction to grow towards are no
longer present in adulthood. So, the
great complication (I predict) will be how to get each of the brain cells to
connect to all the corresponding brain cells, even though the rest of the brain
is no longer undergoing the series of phases that originally led to its final
structure.
The best analogy I have is that, when it is still batter, we
can add chocolate to make it a chocolate cake, but after it’s baked, adding the
same ingredient gives us a vanilla cake drizzled with chocolate sauce. That said, we are outside of my real field of
expertise. This step in figuring out a
cure will have to come from a conversation between a real neuroscientist on top
of developments in that field and a sex researcher who describes this situation
until the neuroscientist says, “Hey, that sounds just like…”.
I don’t know who those people will be or what technology
that will be, but I feel confident in saying that such conversations are most
likely to happen in places that foster cross-pollination between fields and
offer scientists some flexibility outside of a business model, and such places
are becoming increasingly rare.
[FOOTNOTE: Just for the record, I’m using the colloquial
sense of the word “cure” here, as the writer meant it. I point this out to acknowledge that there
are other people who would emphasize that (1) when someone sexually prefers
children, but is neither distressed by it nor poses a risk of harm to anyone
because of it, then the person would not receive a diagnosis in the DSM-5
system, and (2) without there being a diagnosis, it is not clear whether one
should be referring to a “cure.”]
The other thing is, being a pedophile is SUCH a hated thing - even when a pedophile does not abuse children - that a researcher could never find a decent sample of non-abusing pedophiles (too afraid to come forward), and their research would be skewed entirely toward child molesters who may or may not be pedophiles. It would be useless research without a sample of non-abusing pedophiles.
ReplyDeleteComment posted as anonymous because some idiots are going to assume that I'm a pedophile and then send me death threats...