I had to post this again..I guess anybody can answer this, because no psychologists or counselors must be on right now.
My psychologist said that my molester is a pedophile and that it doesn't matter if I hit puberty at the time of the incident. Would the psychologists on yahoo diagnose my molester as a pedophile (it happened from 12-14, 6th to 8th grade). Do you have to go by the DSM-IV definition where it only says that a pedophile must be sexually attracted to PRE-pubescent kids? It says the age range is 13 years and younger, but we know that 9, 10, and 11 year olds hit puberty now these days.
I don't think it should matter if someone hit puberty, because kids are kids. Am I wrong? These 12 year olds who have their periods, have pubic hair, and wear training bras still look like kids and think like kids for god sake. But this guy told me I was stupid for thinking that and how pedophiles aren't attracted to 12 year old girls with pubic hair and budding breasts.Anybody agree?
2007-10-06
10:04:19
·
5 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Social Science
➔ Psychology
What do you mean taking the piss? I think kids who hit puberty shouldn't be exempt from the pedophilic definition.
I want to know if any professionals agree, because I got into a huge argument with some guy who thinks that the definition of pedophilia is only someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent kids. Some people even think hitting puberty means you're already an adult wtf.
2007-10-06
10:24:47 ·
update #1