Jerry Sandusky

There is currently a big deal being made of Jerry Sandusky's having admitted he was attracted to young boys for a minute, before his lawyer made him correct himself.

The ruckus surrounding this admission completely misses the point: It is irrelevant whether or not Sandusky was or is attracted to young boys. People are entitled to feel whatever they want; it is their actions that must be regulated. It does not matter whether or not Sandusky was attracted to young boys - it matters whether or not he acted on his attractions. The "being attracted to young people = molesting them" assumption implicit in this scandal over the sexual-attraction statement is dangerous, in that it assumes people are unable to control their sexual urges and thus deprives them of agency, while providing a potential excuse for rapists in the future - one could claim his sexual attraction is only to people he (or she) coerces, and that because it is impossible not to act on one's sexual desires, s/he just couldn't help her or himself.

As a matter of fact, studies show biology may play a role in attraction to young people - the extent to which this attraction is nature vs nurture is up for debate, but some studies do put pedophilia as a biologically pre-determined sexuality. I would urge anyone with such an attraction to seek therapy. There are two routes this could take: one is to try to change one's attraction patterns, though I believe that is generally hard to do, and the guilt involved might drive one to unethical acts. The second is to learn how to healthfully control those urges and not act on them, an ability that, paradoxically, might be based on a self-acceptance that accepts one's sexual attractions. I believe the second type of therapy should be available to anyone who does not wish to act on their sexual attractions due to ethical or religious reasons (as opposed to, say, having a psychological issue that prevents one from acting on one's desires, which requires a different type of therapy), such as monks/nuns or homosexual people who do not wish to be sexually active for religious reasons. But in the case of a pedophile, I would argue such therapy is necessary, as opposed to optional, lest children be hurt - only, it will never be legally mandatory because for that to happen, the government would have to invade people's brains to find out their sexual identities, like in some sort of zombie version of 1984.

As an aside, I know most therapies as of now are unsuccessful with pedophiles, but most focus on changing a pedophile's attraction habits (as in aversion therapy) and/or encouraging them to pursue adult relationships, as opposed to urging them to accept themselves, including their attraction, but merely learn how to manage said attraction.