The Pedosmile: Do Pedophiles Have A Certain Smile?
By Natalie K Björk... | September 17th 2011 10:01 PM | 122 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

Ph.D. in Human Genetics from the University of Manitoba. Her Ph.D. concentrated in Genetic Epidemiology, particularly of normal variants of genes

...

View Natalie K's Profile

I was busy doing some research on pedophilia when I came upon a fascinating website.The website claims that a person who is a pedophile can be spotted by looking for the “pedosmile” (see http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=spot_the_pedo). The pedosmile is widely recognized in our society and has even been defined in the “urban dictionary” as:

"Phenomenon where, when photographed, a pedophile will always have a creepy, lopsided grin which screams "I molest children". Such pictures are in sharp contrast to those of normal people, who generally have a deer-caught-in-the-headlights expression, and conventional felons such as murderers, who always frown. Typical features of a pedosmile include tight, discoloured lips, visible tongue, concealed teeth, a cocked head, twisted facial features, a bald forehead, disheveled hair, and a general aura of faggotry. Used in conjunction with other indicators, the pedosmile is an excellent method of early pedophile identification. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pedosmile"

[Added due to comments: Note that I myself do not agree with the definition nor the obvious homophobia implied by words like 'faggotry'. I am not calling for introduction of screening by "pedosmile". I am calling for proper study of it since the idea is already 'out there'. Please take the time to read the entire article before becoming hysterical and calling me a Nazi or making claims about what I do or do not say, thank you.]

The original website for the pedosmile includes a series of images of both pedophiles and non-pedophiles and asks the reader to guess which ones are which. After completing the quiz, you are assigned a score on your ability to detect pedophiles. The website’s owner is rather full of himself but, I have to admit I am wondering if he is on to something.

Before we go any further let me make something perfectly clear. First, I define a pedophile as a paraphilia in which an adult has recurrent, intense sexual urges or sexually arousing fantasies of engaging in sexual activity with a pre-pubertal child. Pedophilia, by itself, if not acted upon, is not a crime. There are a lot of adults out there who find children sexually attractive but never touch them sexually because they know how damaging it is to children. One of the only treatments for child molesters that works is treating the attraction to children as an inappropriate urge not dissimilar from the alcoholic's craving for alcohol. As the alcoholic can learn to resist the urge to drink, so a child molester can learn to resist the urge to molest children. This requires overcoming denial, excuses and the stresses relieved by molesting children for the criminal pedophile and drinking and driving for the criminal alcoholic. Once a pedophile always a pedophile, but once a child molester, maybe not always a child molester with the right kind of treatment.

Child molestation, as in actively engaging children in sexual acts, is a crime and rightfully so. Looking at kiddy porn is also child molesting because a child had to be molested to get such images. Children are simply not old enough to be able to consent to the activity, their bodies aren’t physically ready for sex as documented by the damage that pediatric surgeons are left trying to repair after a sexual assault. Children can suffer long term emotional and physical damage when used for sexual gratification by adults. People who engage in sex with children are people who are, well to be perfectly blunt, are utterly and absolutely repugnant and criminal. All those things they say about how it doesn't really harm children and the children want it and all the other excuses for child molestation are just that, excuses, springing from a more dangerous denial than that of the alcoholic who is sure he can safely drive drunk. Adults having sex with a child equals a crime against that child in all circumstances.

Now that we have that clear, why do I think the “pedosmile” might be important? Active pedophiles, or child molesters as I prefer to call them to distinguish them from those pedophiles who do not sexually assault children, are a rarely studied criminal type about which we know little or nothing. We are not very good at spotting them before they do terrible damage. We don’t know much about protecting our children from them. We don't know how to treat them when we do catch them. By the same token, our society’s near hysterical fear of child molesters, means innocent people have been damaged by the mere accusation of being one. Exploring the pedosmile and its implications might improve that sorry situation.

We know, for example, that specific genetic disorders are frequently marked by specific facial characteristics. In the old days, geneticists kept careful catalogues of specific characteristics and used these to diagnose genetic disorders. Today geneticists tend to diagnose by genetic testing. When today's geneticist is trying to decide what tests to order, he or she takes into account those characteristics. For example, one abnormal gene on the X chromosome can cause “Chudley Syndrome” which includes an almond shape eye opening, forward tilted nostrils and an unusually wide mouth1.Therefore, one possibility is that the “pedosmile” does exist and if it does it indicates that pedophilia has a purely genetic basis.If so, we could test for it and figure out what the gene is doing and maybe come up with a way to compensate for the faulty gene of the child molester other than prison yard euthanasia.

We also know that environmental insult in utero can cause a different facial appearance even if the genes are normal. Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS)is an unfortunate example of this. Children who were exposed to alcohol during pregnancy have a characteristic facial appearance that includes an indistinct groove between the nose and upper lip.Therefore, if there is a “pedosmile”, it may be due not to some gene for pedophilia but rather to some environmental insult that occurred before birth. The pedosmile could thus be symptomatic, a measurable sign of some physical basis to pedophilia, such as a form of brain damage. If we knew that, we could potentially educate women to avoid this insult in pregnancy and possibly come up with some way to treat the damage.

The cause of pedophilia is uncertain but we do have some clues. Human sexuality appears to develop via three strands. Each of these strands develops independently. They are gender identity, dyadic relationships, and sexual response. Gender identity is generally accepted to have been formed after conception but well before birth. We know it happens after conception because of the condition known as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. Affected individuals are genetically male but have a completely unresponsive receptor for androgen. Individuals with complete androgen insensitivity develop into phenotypic females complete with a female gender identity even though genetically they are male.

We also know gender identity is fixed before birth as evidenced by the miserably failed experiments of changing boys to girls after some mishap causes them to lose the penis as infants. For many decades it was felt that simply converting these boys to phenotypic girls and raising them as girls would result in little girls. Instead, this procedure resulted in miserably mixed up individuals who often reclaimed their male gender identity on becoming adults. They suffered so much along the way that some of them committed suicide2. We can safely conclude that while we are born with our gender identity fixed, it is fixed sometime after conception.

The second strand in human sexual development is our experience with dyadic relationships. These are the ability to form and maintain relationships with others. This ability is developed via a learning process that begins at birth and continues through childhood and adolescence and into adulthood. Parents are the most important factor for young children. Peers are most important during adolescence. The environment we are raised in plays an important role in this developmental process but so too do basic traits of temperament such as irritability or resilience an individual child is born with. Dyadic relationship development can be seen as a combination of environmental conditions and genetic predisposition3.

The third strand is sexual response. It appears that sexual response is highly variable in individuals. There is a range from a general lack of sexual response in childhood to clear sexual awareness including masturbation to orgasm from early childhood onward. The large variability in sexual response means that the three strands, gender identity, dyadic relationships, and sexual response and their normal pattern of development can be “derailed”. One area can develop out of synch with the other. This out of synch development can prevent the growth of normal adult sexual relationships.

Pedophiles are considered to not be born so much as made. They were short circuited somewhere along the path to normal adult sexuality and get stuck with an adult sized sexual interest focused on children instead of other adults. Most people think a history of child sexual abuse lies at the root of child molesters. However, the majority men who were abused as children do not go on to become abusers. Furthermore, a substantial minority of men who are abusers were not themselves abused as children. There is even evidence suggesting child molesters become molesters while they are still children themselves. If an underage child molester joins up with an adult child molester they get tutoring and commit far more aggressive acts than their child molesting peers who did not get such tutoring.

What are the biological factors that are known to contribute to pedophilia? The field is rife with poor research, little data and confounding factors. Nevertheless, three factors have been reliably shown to be part of the offender profile. Lower IQ than the general population is one factor and when stratified, the lower the IQ, the younger the child molested. Furthermore, left-handedness and lower cognitive function are also more common among pedophiles. The combination of left-handedness and lower cognitive function are suggestive of, but not proof for, a prenatal developmental error contributing to child molesting. Such a developmental error, if it does exist, could also be expressed in the pedosmile.

One interesting observation is that pedophiles suffer from depression and anxiety. Depression and anxiety are known to have a genetic predisposition as part of the pathology. Of course, being a pedophile, something our society hates, which can also land you in jail for life or worse, may be a source of depression and anxiety all by itself. The balance of the data on biological or genetic factors associated with pedophilia is fascinating, suggesting frontal lobe abnormalities, higher or lower testosterone levels, and other clues that are suggestive of a biological basis for pedophilia. Unfortunately, this body of work is also fraught with methodological errors, sometimes of the most basic sort. All we can do with it is call for more and better research to follow up on what are presently only tantalizing suggestions.

Another of the puzzles is why is it that such a large proportion of pedophiles are male? There are two common explanations. The first is that men are generally more aggressive and physically larger and due to their higher levels of testosterone have a higher sex drive and so are more likely to offend sexually. The second is that female pedophiles are actually just as common as males but simply don’t get caught as often because our society stereotypes offenders as male. We just don’t watch women around children as much as we do men. We have great difficulty accepting the idea of a female pedophile. I will propose a third possibility that would be in accord with the pedosmile as a biologic signal.

If you examine the X chromosome and compare it to other chromosomes two things are immediately obvious. One is that the X chromosome is a large one. It has a lot of genes compared to most other chromosomes. Second, the X chromosome contains a high proportion of genes related to brain development. The Y chromosome is tiny and has very few such genes. Why would this be?

Evolutionarily,human females have a lot invested in each offspring and are normally highly selective about whom they mate with. Even after choosing a mate an astonishing number of pregnancies (2-10 percent) are due to non-paternity (i.e., the husband thinks he is the father but he is not). Studies of non-paternity show that women tend to cuckold their mates with men of higher social standing5.

Human females have two X chromosomes. Males have one. Early in development, when the female embryo is a ball of cells inside her mother, one X is inactivated at random in each cell. Females are a blended mixture of cells each with one X chromosome activated and one X chromosome inactivated. This is nicely demonstrated if you look at the calico cat. In cats, the gene for coat color is also on the X chromosome. So in cats with one black gene and one orange gene for coat color you will see patches of orange and black. All normal mammalian females have these blended patches producing a genetic pattern called mosaicism, but we can really only see it visually in female cats.

Because females are mosaics due to X inactivation the effects of recessive genes on one X chromosome are compensated for by dominant corresponding genes(alleles) on the other X chromosome. Females are carriers for recessive traits on the X chromosome but are themselves unaffected. In males the reverse is true. Males have only one X chromosome so all their recessive genes on the X are exposed. With so much in the way of brain development inherited on the X chromosome, the male brain readily expresses recessives that could be either deleterious or advantageous. Females will then presumably seek out and mate with the men expressing desirable brain traits and avoid the deleterious ones. Over evolutionary time this results in offspring that are increasingly intelligent and genetically healthy. One unfortunate side effect of this evolutionary selection process is that males with a deleterious gene, such as propensity to violence or mental defect, will express such traits. And so maladaptive genes, or more likely genetic predispositions to maladaptive behaviours such as pedophilia, will be much more common in males than females simply because in females they are recessive and are therefore hidden. Perhaps one symptom of this is the pedosmile.

Alternatively the pedosmile could be explained simply as the defense mechanism of predatory child molesters that they develop over time because it works to disarm their prey, children. The smile is reminiscent of a young child’s toothless and endearing smile. Pulling the top lip over the top teeth may simply serve to make the offender seem less threatening to a child. This would allow the offender to more easily acquire the trust of a child and more easily gain access and compliance from the child. It may be that the pedosmile, if it exists, is simply a useful disguise child molesters employ that they learned works, consciously or unconsciously, by simple trial and error.

Where does this leave us? Almost nowhere. We know so little for certain. There may or may not be a pedosmile and it may or may not be relevant to understanding pedophilia. Using a pedosmile to diagnose, prevent or treat chid molesters is extremely risky. The concept of the pedosmile does lend interesting potential insights and can guide us to some specific research designed to test the hypothesis. I therefore propose the following studies be done:

1. Using school pictures, do a large retrospective analysis of convicted pedophiles from school age to adult compared with an appropriately matched control sample looking for evidence of the pedosmile. Facial recognition software should aid in that endeavor.

2. If the pedosmile is present in childhood and predictive of pedophile offenses, then intense research should be undertaken to understand the biological, social and environmental inputs in its creation. This would include standard genetic analysis and comparison of family members with and without the pedosmile, twin studies, and the entire gamut of genetic analyses for locating the suspect gene(s). The purpose is not to develop a genetic test for a pedophile but rather to identify what the function of the genes involved is. This information can then be used to tease out environmental insults before birth that might contribute to pedophilia so, like alcohol in FAS, the trigger could be avoided.

3. Simultaneously, the pedosmile could be used to test therapies useful in treating younger adults otherwise destined to become child molesters.

Even if there is no pedosmile, undertaking the research in and of itself would help us to better understand the child molester. The actions of the child molester are so repugnant and so sickening that as a society we avoid trying to unravel the child molester puzzle. We prefer to pretend they don’t exist and then when they are caught, either try to deny the problem exists, blame the victim or the non-offending adults, kill the molesters outright, or warehouse them for life in prison. These reactions are not particularly useful in protecting children. We have an obligation to study the child molester, learn what a child molester is, learn how to prevent child molestation, treat the offender, and in doing so stop the assaults. Anything less is a failure to protect our children.

Selected References:

1) Chudley AE, etal, “Mental retardation, distinct facial changes, shortstature, obesity, and hypogonadism: A new X-linked mental retardationsyndrome.” Am J of Med Gen. Volume31, Issue 4, pages 741–751, December 1988.

2) SexReassignment at Birth: A Long Term Review and Clinical ImplicationsArchives of Pediatric&Adolescent Medicine March 1997 (vol.151. pp.298-304)

3) Bancroft J,“Normal Sexual Development” in Barbarbaree, HE, Marchall WL (eds)The Juvenile Sex Offender, The Guilford Press, New York 2nd Ed 2006.(Kindle ed, Location 392)

4) Blanchard R,Cantor JM, Robichaud LK, “Biological factors in the Development ofSexual Deviance and Aggression in Males.” in Barbarbaree, HE,Marchall WL (eds) The Juvenile Sex Offender, The Guildford Press, NewYork 2nd Ed 2006. (Kindle ed, Location 1117.)

5) King, TE, &Jobling, MA, “Founders, Drift, and Infidelity: The Relationshipbetween Y Chromosome Diversity and Patrilineal Surnames.” MolecularBiology and Evolution Vol 26,1093-1102, 2009

How does Pogo the Clown smile?
Phenomenon where, when photographed, a pedophile will always have a creepy, lopsided grin which screams "I molest children". Such pictures are in sharp contrast to those of normal people, who generally have a deer-caught-in-the-headlights expression, and conventional felons such as murderers, who always frown. Typical features of a pedosmile include tight, discoloured lips, visible tongue, concealed teeth, a cocked head, twisted facial features, a bald forehead, disheveled hair, and a general aura of faggotry.

Really?  There is so much wrong with this:
1.) Your use of the word faggotry screams homophobia.  Gay man$\neq$pedophile .   Further the word itself is as offensive as any racial slur.

2.) Does this man smile like that?

Kind of over the top but what would one expect from a clown?

He smiles a very normal smile .

Both are of the same man and here is some of his handiwork. (_http://abcnews.go.com/US/mother-john-wayne-gacy-victim-exhume-sons-body/story?id=14537632)
Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
you are confusing a serial killer with a child molesters not to mention this article is referring to the possibility of there being a "pedosmile" not advocating one. and yes the John Gacy has a creepy smile.

I too winced at the "faggotry" in the urban dictionary however I was quoting them not endorsing them. I have written before about the importance of not mistaking consenting adult male/male sexuality with child molesting. The two are different and one has nothing to do with the other. In the history of the gay rights movement in the early days there was an unfortunate attempt to include child molesting within the "gay rights" movement which ended when gay right activists forced the pedophiles among them out. I often think our society's homophobia is more fear of child molesters than gay men. The majority of openly avowed homophobes I have encountered will, on close questioning, agree they don't give a damn about adult consenting gay men, they are objecting to adult male on child sexuality. I'm not sure what the rest of you comment and your links is about.
And yet you confuse child molesters with pedophiles. The former where never associated with gay people.

Its baffling that you not only confuse pedophiles with chid molesters but also that you SUPPORT the discrimination of people based on their sexual orientation (pedophilia) and support pedophobia.

Discrimination against pedophiles because of their sexual orientation is discrimination nevertheless.

You claim "every article I have seen on the topic clearly separates the person with the desire who does not act on it, from the offender who does."

which is easily disproved by the way in which you constantly conflate both. For example:

"What are the biological factors that are known to contribute to pedophilia? (...) Nevertheless, three factors have been reliably shown to be part of the offender profile. Lower IQ than the general population is one factor and when stratified, the lower the IQ, the younger the child molested. Furthermore, left-handedness and lower cognitive function are also more common among pedophiles."

Oh fuck you. Get your panties out of a bunch, you faggot. Homophobia is a live and well, and there's good reason, too - they don't reproduce, it's not natural, it doesn't help the human race! It's like having sex for no point at all. Put faggots on an island and let them be their own race, see how they survive - oh wait, they'd all die, because nobody would reproduce! Dumb fucker.

With 7 BILLION HUMANS acting like AIDS & killing this planet
the only thing you backward humans care about is self obsession,
your pathetic lazy good for nothing god & having your cocks worshipped.
LISTEN FAGGOT
WHY DO MEN HAVE A G SPOT UP THEIR ANUS?
ORGASM WITHOUT A HARD ON FROM ANAL STIMULATION AY FAGGOT?
WHY ARE MEN SO BAD AT SEX WOMEN ARE STILL FAKING OR TURNING TO DEVICES OR OTHER WOMEN?!
AFTER HOW MANY CENTURIES OF PRACTICE STRAIGHT JOKES ON U!
STICK LESBIANS & GAYMEN ON AN ISLAND WE'D BE JUST FINE AS WHAT'S THE ULTIMATE MAN FANTASY 2 WOMEN WELL SURPRISE A COCK IS NOT REQUIRED IN THAT SITUATION AS WOMEN WANT INTIMACY NOT BANGED SHAGGED PUMPED UP THE ARSE ETC
DO THE WORLD A FAVOUR & CHOKE ON YOUR OWN DICK!
FYI HAVING SEX FOR NO POINT AT ALL THAT IS ONLY HUMANS DUMB SHIT
CLEARLY U WERE BORN IN YOUR MOTHERS ARSE GO CRAWL BACK UP THERE!
Coz the subject was pedos so the sooner we do away with the Church who block/prevent the law from procecuting pedo priests 1 if you're a follower you support pedos & 2 do away with the world we be a better place with fewer poorly educated "Zak Dwyer's"

Do gay people hurt straights? No. You sound ridiculous, you can't spell and frankly your parents should be ashamed of the way they brought you up. Paedophilia, yes is disgusting because it is basically sexual assault on non consenting persons. Being gay is two men/women with sexual attractions to each other, which won't kill anyone (and don't play the AIDS card, because straight people get STIs also). You are clearly an uneducated idiot-if you dislike gays so much, leave them alone? I dislike dark caves, so I stay away from them, I don't go running around inside them... Also as a straight person, yes I'd prefer my son to be straight because of twats like you making gays feel shit about themselves, but when he told me he was gay I was fine with it! He's a human being and he has as much right as everyone else to be gay.

Laurent Beauregard-Von Edler u responded to my reply & I did not make any of these points - can u kindly direct it to the correct comment box - ta
i am against ignorance, homophobia, pedos/molesters & covering up of it!
pedos need help to prevent them being molesters - if they cannot stop/control take hands & genitals off because
children must be protected from both types by teaching them to be aware it is wrong & to speak out about it

Plus judging someone by a look or smile is just so backwards but this entire bullshit was started by that twat idiot moron Maddox (a complete arsehole who thought this was funny dark humour) who started it as a joke now this writer has decided to have a big serious discussion about it Howver her final point is valid rather than brushing under the carpet - take the stance like war & crime try to understand it then conquer it.

Not so long ago on facebook a so called newbie joker (name Baby George
https://www.facebook.com/BabyGeorgeBaby there seems to be something very WRONG with this person!!)
posted a pic with a infant baby doll next to a black & white drawing of a young baby next to a erect penis with the caption "new borns dont know the difference between a throbbing penis & something or other" I reported it right away FB took it offline as ppl were threatning the user including me!
now ppl want to joke about this type of thing I have zero tolerance on that as well

1. I'd argue the majority of humans engage in sexual activities for purposes other then reproduction. That's why we have a contraceptive industry alive and well.
2. If by natural you mean the behavior is seen in animals besides humans, you're dead wrong. Many species are seen engaging in homosexual activities. This generally coincides with their species mating for reasons other then reproduction. Further more to be "natural" by this definition is not necessarily a good thing. Using tools to build other tools isn't "natural" either, nor is creating works of art. We still consider these to be good things. Killing someone to take their land and eating your children when you run out of food are quite natural and seen in millions of species, but we consider these to be bad things.
3. You are dead wrong that homosexuals have no advantage for the human race. The running theory right now is it's an evolutionary adaptation to encourage quality of offspring rather then quantity. You see a homosexual may not reproduce, but they may have siblings and other relations that do. These siblings have similar genes to them including most likely an inactive one that can trigger homosexuality. Therefore a homosexual may not pass on his or her own genes however they can help siblings to find spouses and assist in raising the resulting children thus encouraging the family genes.

Further more even if this doesn't happen homosexuals can benefit the human race in a variety of ways. Given they don't reproduce they are able to be more productive since they don't need to raise children. Alternatively they can choose to adopt, which contrary to popular belief results in well adjusted children, much better off then they would be if they'd been raised in the foster care system.

And if you still can't stand the idea of consenting adults engaging in a sexual activity you personally don't like, think of this, YOU don't have to compete with them. That's right any given time you walk into the bar and see ten guys in terrific shape who you're sure are going to steal all the chicks, good news, one of them is probably gay! That means there's one girl left over for you thanks to homosexuals!

«Many species are seen engaging in homosexual activities». I think that you are confusing between sexual relation and domination acting.

Bravo! well said Pat.

YOU don't get your knickers in a twist! Are you telling me that you never screw for just the pleasure of it? Do you never jerk off? Also, are you as disgusted with girls on girls? You sir, are absolutely ridiculous. Who fucking cares about who is fucking who, as long as all parts are willing and enjoying themselves.

pe·do·phil·i·a/ˌpedəˈfilēə/
Noun: Sexual feelings directed toward children.

Just in case your post is more than a flame and you are open to genuine discussion, let me try to assist the author here. The author clearly distinguishes pedophiles from child molesters, establishing child molesters as active pedophiles, or those pedophiles that engage in sexual acts with children. The discrimination of pedophiles is mentioned, and is the point of the article, only in the sense that discrimination means "a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things", and will help psychologists discern who is attracted to children as to help them cope with such an attraction, so they will not become child molesters, therefore stopping them from hurting children. By helping pedophiles keep their sexual desire contained. So the author in fact does not really conflate the terms child molester and pedophile, but focuses on identifying pedophiles (who, just like you said, are not necessarily child molesters) to treat them and try to stop them from becoming child molesters. So there's a lot of paranoia on the subject, and pedophiles hide because they are afraid of being taken for child molesters. Yeah, some probably do, but at the same time many seek no help and are at risk of becoming child molesters. That is the focus of this article, and why it makes for an interesting read.

Wow I didn't know there was a difference I think that is a major problem with the news today!
Lack of info! I think a Pedo needs support more than anything as at least they try to refrain
I stand corrected on this term but regardless of the smile whatever children must be protected
A Child should have more rights than the Human Rights act!
What's the point of protecting a kiddy fiddler from society if families cannot protect their children & the child suffers!
The Church needs to fix up with all the fiddling that been going on for so long being covered up!

"Discrimination against pedophiles because of their sexual orientation is discrimination nevertheless."

Wow. Just...wow. You're totally right; pedophiles shouldn't be discouraged, they should be encouraged and told that wanting to sex up a prepubescent child is perfectly fine. That way, when they act out on it, they won't feel so bad.

Perhaps people already had pedophobia before internet articles were written about them. Because, you know, the whole desire to rape a child gets people a little on edge.

People complain about everything these days, I swear it's just to hear themselves moan.

Short, concise and well stated. Bravo!

A thoughtful response would include some intelligent language regarding the science behind the makings of a pedophile, but to be honest, I don't give a fuck. A pedophile is often a predator who if he/she could, would harm a child in the worst possible way scaring the child for life.

That said, does anyone really care if a pedophile is discriminated against? Of course not!

Regarding the subject of the PEDOSMILE. I had to read it. The pedophile who was standing behind my daughter in an image I shot, just happend to have the most creepy, eery, disturbing smile on his face. A month later, he tried to lure my daughter. Perhaps there really is something to the pedosmile.

Wait a goddamn minute here..are you really trying to defend pedo and saying we are discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation? Goddamn right I am they lust after and defile and ruin the lifes of innocent children..just because they havent actually touched a kid yet doesnt make them any better then a child molester...

if I have a dog and he has rabies but hasnt actually bit someone yet doesn't justify me keeping the dog..I should do the responsible thing and put the dog down...the same way EVERY single fucking child molester and pedophile and anyone that would think for even a second that having sex with a child is alright should be brought out back and shot in the back of the head.....add anyone that would actually defend them to that list to, your fucking disgusting

No one has defended child molesters and there are laws that exist and should be rigidly enforced to that end.
If I have a dog and he has rabies but hasn't actually bit someone yet doesn't justify me keeping the dog..I should do the responsible thing and put the dog down...the same way EVERY single fucking child molester and pedophile and anyone that would think for even a second that having sex with a child is alright should be brought out back and shot in the back of the head
Are you just going to go around shooting people at random?  Perhaps you can read their minds?  Perhaps you've got some kind of grand rationalization that allows you to identify a pedophile, so that you can take it upon yourself to be judge, jury, and executioner.   ... all without them actually having committed a crime.

Whether you like it or not, there is no law against the thoughts and ideas that people may have in their heads.

While I can appreciate being emotionally vested in wanting to protect children, it serves no good nor any purpose to advocate large scale murder and terrorism, just to make yourself feel better.
how many times a day do you have thoughts of raping a child? because you are sure spending a lot of time and effort to defend pedophiles..do i want random people shot ? no! do i want people caught with child porn or convicted of rape of a child punished way beyond the means the law currently seems to allow yes! they are destroying innocence, and anyone who tries to defend their thoughts, actions or beliefs is just fucked in the head. Maybe you have some deep seated problems and thoughts you need to take care of...

Stop your crap and innuendos.  If you don't get it, then let me spell it out for.  You CANNOT punish people that haven't done anything wrong, regardless of what thoughts they have in their heads.  You seem to move freely beyond the thoughts an individual has and the actions they take.  The latter are covered by the law, while the former are  not.

No one is disputing the issue regarding child porn or rape or molestation.  So, it doesn't really matter whether you think someone's beliefs are screwed up, you don't have the right {thankfully] to simply impose your strange sense of justice on people that have committed no crimes.

People like you always think that defending someone's rights is the same as defending their views.  Please get that straight in your head.  I don't have to favor pedophiles, nor agree with their sexual orientation to recognize that it isn't a crime to be born with such thoughts if you don't act on them.
Discrimination against pedophiles because of their sexual orientation is discrimination nevertheless.

I wouldn't consider it discrimination, more like punishment for breaking the law. If I'm not mistaken its against the law to engage in a sexual act with a minor. I wouldn't call it discrimination, just application of the law.

I wouldn't consider it discrimination, more like punishment for breaking the law.
If the law has been broken.  The point here is that pedophilia indicates a particular sexual orientation, regardless of whether the individual has ever acted on it.  In those cases, an individual could be a pedophile but no one would know because they've never broken the law.

You may think that this is a minor distinction, but if someone has broken the law then there are clearly reasons to be concerned about this individual's behavior around children and in society.  While the legal response may not necessarily be adequate, it is getting better attention.

The problem is the individual that has such feelings, but has never broken the law.  Due to the stigma attached to being a pedophile, we may have people completely avoiding the option of therapy or treatment, simply because they will be vilified.  Take note, that I'm specifically referring to someone that has NOT broken any laws.  I realize that some people don't care and would just as readily kill them all, just for expressing the idea, but that will solve nothing.

Um, you need to go back to school and actually learn about pedophilia and child molesting before posting such absolute nonsensical garbage. I am completely appalled that whoever is in charge of this website actually let you publish such blatent misinformation and fear mongering hysterical crap. You have totally done humanity a disservice in general and have no business even being allowed to address an issuue such as this. Not to mention the fact that the whole idea of essentially using facial recognition to determine who is/is not a pedophile or child molester is complete lunacy. Did you get your degree off a cereal box? Seriously, the level of justification, lack of accountability in your opinions stated here, and the way you try to make this all sound plausable all suggest you have a more personal and immoral agenda against such individuals. None of your arguements have a basis in actual science no mattter how intelligent you try to make them sound. Why not just be honest and say, "I am afraid and scared of all offenders because society has conditioned me to the point where I believe we need to identify every single one so we can isopate them all on islands or murder every single one we can identify." The ideas you propose here border on witch hunting and hysteria that increase vigilanteism and

I'm wondering what your actual rant is about.  It seems clear that you are adept at throwing insults, but not so clear on voicing an actual objection.  I thought the article was quite specific in pointing out the fundamental risks in such a simple technique and was guardedly qualified in emphasizing the importance of establishing whether such a "pedosmile" actually existed.

There is little doubt (and the article emphasized this), that the use of such external cues can be quite risky and that it is largely uncertain that anything useful can be derived from this approach.  In particular, the point was made that, given the little information we have about pedophiles, then perhaps (just perhaps), this might be an approach that allows for identification of some early genetic (or biological) factors.

There's no question that this is something that could be abused if it was conducted in an unqualified fashion because it does lend itself to ignorant labeling of individuals for no better reason than how they might smile.

If the article had not been aware of these risks, then perhaps you might have a point.  However, in the absence of any coherent criticism, it is impossible to tell what point you're trying to make.
Hey Author, please stop employing the scientific method and cease your experiments immediately. The guy above me is sure that any claims of your research having potential value are complete "lunacy".

Maybe we should ask this magician where to direct our research efforts since he is gifted enough to tell us what will be useful before we discover it!

Let's just put it this way.... the identification and eradication of one particular group of people in society purports the idea of genocide, and your article border, albeit in an illuding fasion, to this idea. The jews during world war two were made to wear stars and were brutally killed, murdered, and mutilated by non jews for their opinions and beliefs. What you are suggesting here is child molesters and pedos wear stars and be banished or killled as a result. You should be so ashamed of yourself. You need some serious mental health counseling for even trying to justify any of this. Its just plain sickening.

Your comment is one of the most foolish I've read in a long time.  It didn't take long, in this case, to invoke Nazi's so I guess that illustrates the extremity of your views.

In case you haven't been paying attention, child molesters are already required to register as sex offenders, so the concern about identifying and labeling such a group is seriously misplaced.
Your reply is foolish. Go back and reread the article. It advocates the segregration of a segment of society based on "genetic factors" hich current science has already indicated that pedophilia and child molestation are enviornmental and sociological factors, not genetic. There is plenty of research on this subject. Not to mention the fact that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is the LOWEST of any crime. Specific to sexual offending, when not including other crimes not related to sexual offending. What this author purports is advocating RESEARCH and funding based on stereotyping a specific group of people. And even with the best intentions, it can or could be abused... and in most cases it is. Ie the segregation of blacks in america because they were percieved inferior based on genetics... the killing of millions of jews becausee they didn't have elite white dna. Before you start telling me how wrong I am look deeper into the issues being discussed here. The reasons above were some of the same reasons genocide became justifiable in germany and segregation was justified in the good ol USA. There are direct coorelations.

Sorry, but your conflating of social/political issues with scientific questions doesn't justify your rant.  There isn't anything that was mentioned scientifically that argues about segregating anyone.  In fact, the article specifically states that even IF this relationship was true, and IF there were a genetic factor, then it is still something that is very risky to interpret and should only be considered with the utmost of care.

If you can't accept that as a qualifying premise then you obviously have an agenda.  It would be different if this were a public policy decision being debated, but it isn't and your point is way over the top.
Jesus, really? No one mentions or alludes to eliminating any group of people anywhere in the article. It mentions identifying pedophiles so they can get treatment and not become child molesters. Not public identification, mind you, but as a psychological tool to offer psychological help, and to study the factors that result in the development of pedophilia. No banishment, no murder, no execution, no pedostars on their clothing. I, at least, have no objection to any paraphilia, including paraphilia, not by itself. But if a pedophile becomes a child molester, then he or she is a criminal, and helping the pedophile then is no only more difficult (because of jail time, abuse by the public, alienation from the family, etc), but a child has already been hurt. So pedophiles should be lining up outside psychologists' offices to get help and avoid getting all those nasty consequences of child molestation. Privately, protected by the same right to privacy as any other psychological/psychiatric patient. Identifying a pedosmile, if at all possible, would then be a tool for professionals, not the basis of an antipedophile war. Why are there so many defensive comments here? God, just read the complete article.

To compare a list of sex offenders to the Holocaust is so absurd, so wrong, and so deeply unintelligent that I am finding an outrageously difficult time in putting it into words. In one fell swoop you have:
-trivialized the holocaust
-compared Jews to pedophiles
-compared a race of people to those who choose to molest children
-equated the mass murder and immolation of millions to letting neighborhoods know a sex offender is in their area.

You are the definition of stupid. Your comment is so incredibly dimwitted that it almost physically hurts me to read it. Seek mental help immediately, because clearly something is wrong in that deranged head of yours.

You are fucking stupid. Go back to reddit and let the adults do science, please.

The writer of this nonsense has a PHD? WTF? She should be shot on site for this nonsense and have that degree revoked. To use her own type of nonsense.....she even LOOKS like an idiot!

Ummm, not to detract from your bender, but why?  You don't have any actual issue with anything written, you just don't like it. That's cool.  But claims of nonsense, in the science sense, usually have some data behind them.  So what is yours?
Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
Completely unrelated to the article, but how the hell does she 'look' like an idiot. You're an idiot, you even SOUND like an idiot.

Thank you Gerhard and Hank. Unfortunately the hysterical reaction exhibited by "anonymous" and nearly anonymous unverified "Mark" is exactly why the issue requires careful scientific study and consideration. Knee jerk threats to shoot the messenger is not going to make the problem go away.  Invoking Nazism and comparing pedophiles to Jews is just plain silly unless you happen to also think child molesters are a falsely maligned minority who should be protected so they can molest children. I did talk about denial in child molesters in the article. I seriously doubt either one of them even read the whole thing.
Oh and anonymous, in response to "_suggest you have a more personal and immoral agenda against such individuals" is actually partly true. I do think think child molesters are scourge on society we do need to protect children from. We need to find a way to successfully treat what is obviously a very sick twisted criminal mind set, and prevent more children from being molested. The average child molester offends against 10-500 children in their life depending on how you define a child molesting. That's 10-500 too many.

OK, so now I can see that you simply aren't paying attention.  The article was NOT about sex offenders.  It was specifically about pedophiles.  If you can't differentiate the two, then perhaps the problem is in your own sense of segregation.

There's no question that modern sex offender laws are often inappropriate and sporadically applied.  However, that does nothing to change the underlying issue of dealing with actual pedophiles and child molesters.  If you can't appreciate the distinction, then I would suggest the problem lies in your perceptions and not the article.
Did you read the article? I was very specific about my definition of a child molester/pedophile. "_First, I define a pedophile as a paraphilia in which an adult has recurrent, intense sexual urges or sexually arousing fantasies of engaging in sexual activity with a pre-pubertal child. " I fail to see how you can conflate this to all the unfair legal designations involving teenagers.
@ Anonymous

I felt she made it extremely clear that she was talking about adults committing sexual crimes against underage children and not sex offenders. There is a huge difference, and I never once felt like she was talking about offenders in general. Also, I'm pretty sure the author is not suggesting we segregate or commit genocide. In fact, I'm pretty sure that she wants to help pedophiles get proper treatment so that they don't commit criminal acts and hurt innocent children. If more research can be done to explain how a pedophile goes from fantasizing to acting out on their fantasies, or how a person even comes to these fantasies and feelings in the first place, whether it be genetic or environmental, then maybe preventative measures can be taken, meaning treatment, not segregation. I don't see anywhere in the article where she suggests that we kill them all. I see that she wants to treat them so they can function normally in society and so that more children's lives aren't destroyed.

Sorry, but I think the idea that there is such a thing as a 'pedosmile' that can be used to scientifically identify pedophiles is absolutely ludicrous and very dangerous to all of those poor insecure people in the world who are either shy, socially inept, suffer from mental illnesses other than pedophilia or who just have unfortunate teeth and/or smiles and this will do nothing to encourage these people to smile in the future. The definition you quote from the Urban dictionary is also ludicrous :-
Phenomenon where, when photographed, a pedophile will always have a creepy, lopsided grin which screams "I molest children". Such pictures are in sharp contrast to those of normal people, who generally have a deer-caught-in-the-headlights expression, and conventional felons such as murderers, who always frown.
Every year approximately one million people commit suicide in the world and 20 million more people are directly adversely affected by their deaths, including children. Introducing the concept of a pseudoscientific, 'pedosmile', pedophile detector onto the scene would probably increase this number, as society's less socially adept individuals are persecuted and socially alienated even more.

BTW the website you linked to brings back the following warning message from McAfee :-
Whoa!
Are you sure you want to go there?
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sp... may be risky to visit.
• When we visited this site, we found it exhibited one or more risky behaviors.
Make love not war
I think you have to be careful to separate what the article says from what the introductory website proposes.

It may sound far-fetched, and it's certainly dangerous to play fast and loose with something that could be so socially volatile, but consider the basis of it.  Probably the best example is the lie detector, where it is something that has a poor scientific basis and yet is pervasive in usage where it may do considerably more harm than good.  It serves as a good illustration of how a seemingly reasonable idea can get out of control.

However, we also have to consider the work of people like Paul Ekman, that have established a reasonable basis for arguing that our facial muscles and emotions are difficult to control when we are lying.  Therefore, even if there are dozens of subtleties involved, there seems to be a scientific reason to suggest that our ability to deceive (hide our true intentions) can potentially be detected through external means.

Even according to someone like Ekman, this is hardly a fully objective process since one would have to have established a baseline of behavior and expressions, but it lends some credence to the idea.  Therefore, it is plausible (regardless of how unlikely), that similarly expressions may be capable of analysis for those that harbor inappropriate thoughts towards children.

My biggest concern, isn't that this is possible, but much like deception, that it is simply too varied to provide a reliable means of predicting anything.  As such, it is capable of being abused, and be utilized as a pseudoscience, rather than as something that might actually be scientifically correct.

There's no question, that the scientific question is simple compared to the social/political consequences of its misuse.  However, the two should not be confused.
However, we also have to consider the work of people like Paul Ekman, that have established a reasonable basis for arguing that our facial muscles and emotions are difficult to control when we are lying.  Therefore, even if there are dozens of subtleties involved, there seems to be a scientific reason to suggest that our ability to deceive (hide our true intentions) can potentially be detected through external means.
Even if this were possible how can it possibly be translated into identifying and distinguishing a pedophile from say a rapist, a philandering spouse, a dodgy CEO or even a politician (!) just from a lying smile? The concept of a 'pedosmile' reeks of quackery and pseudoscience and it always will.

I also think that the problem of pedophilia is one that needs much more careful, scientific psychological and sociological study and scrutiny which is why these spanish inquisition, witch hunt approaches should be immediately nipped in the bud.

An obvious problem area to me is the blatant sexualization of children by the media and fashion industry from the adult replica, skimpy clothes that many children are wearing and also by the media which is constantly promoting skinny, adolescent girls as the epitomy of what is a sexy, attractive female in both magazines and in films.

Film stars, models and many of the general population often spend enormous amounts of time and money dieting, dressing, exercising and having plastic surgery to try and look like....sexy teenagers. Is it any wonder that some men are therefore getting confused messages and that a small minority are even turning into pedophiles, who physically act upon this society conditioned, sexual attraction towards these underaged teenagers who are wearing micro miniskirts and skimpy sexy clothing?
Make love not war
This is all horseshit, one defense after another for why people are raping children..its because of hollywood now???
you know what i watch all the same movies and tv shows of these hollywood actors and actresses you mention..know how many times while watching it i had thoughts of raping a child?? ZERO cause im not a pedophile or a child molester or any other definition you want to use.

you cant become a pedophile the same way you cant become gay it is something your born with and something that can not be changed or helped...have you ever met a child molester? have you ever been molested? if not you have no business talking about any of this reforming/helping them. they cant be helped they are broken sick individuals who will continue to pursue their sexual preferences the same way you or I might. There is no treatment, pill or punishment to make me not straight.

you can use all the big words you want and quote all the bullshit studies you want but in the end you just are not facing the real true evil these sexual predators have on todays society...and godforbid until they somehow impact your life you just won't get it.

It's pretty obvious that you are simply unable to differentiate the issues between those that commit crimes versus those that simply have a particular orientation.
...they cant be helped...
That statement is obviously what your entire set of comments are based on.  So perhaps you could provide the scientific evidence that supports that conclusion?  Once again, I'm not talking about child molesters [those that committed a crime], I'm talking about pedophiles [those that have a sexual orientation that they have not acted on].

Perhaps if you could discuss this instead of simply spouting hysterical nonsense, your point might actually come across.
This is all horseshit, one defense after another for why people are raping children...
The only horseshit here is your inability to recognize that no one is defending child molesters.  You think that by repeating it over and over you can somehow change that.  You are so hung up on protecting a child's innocence, and yet have mentioned nothing about all the problems that occur in society [I won't even get into other cultures].  Do you think having alcoholic parents that beat you is protecting innocence?  Do you think that children that are subject to abuse [verbal and physical] and tortures [i.e. chained in a basement] are having their innocence protected?  By focusing only on the sexual aspect, you seem to be quite willing to avoid discussing some of the real issues.
As I said I quoted the website I did not approve it. Whether you like it or not other people out there are already using the "pedosmile" and the evidence is the existence of the website and the fact it made it into the urban dictionary. That is the pseudoscience here. I am not advocating using the pedosmile. I am advocating a proper and full study of the concept and IF and only IF there is a properly proven such thing then, and only then, it might prove useful to say clinicians working with child molesters. I simple speculated on what it might mean IF there is one. IF there is such a thing then it should be provable. If there is not then that is also provable. How you jumped from proving or disproving an idea already out there in the population culture to me being responsible for suicides of merely shy individuals is utterly beyond me. A proper study that disproves there is a pedosmile would prevent suicides among innocents not cause them. If the pedosmile is proven to exist as an entity specific to pedophiles then it should be possible to differentiate between someone who is just shy and someone who is pedophile which would also reduce the risk of suicide for a merely shy person. Did you read the entire article or only the first few paragraphs before jumping to wild conclusions about causing suicides?
Excuse me but we are talking about a smile here! Its totally ridiculous pseudoscience which is difficult to prove and/or disprove. BTW yes I did read the whole article and yes I totally agree there does need to be more 'proper' scientific studies into what causes people to become pedophiles and how to identify and treat them.
Make love not war
The claim being made at the web site is certainly pseudoscience, since a claim is being made that is unsubstantiated.  However, the article is encouraging studies which would likely end up refuting the claims, and if there is something there, then at least put it on a scientific footing.

Like some of the other posters, you're overlooking the reality that in the absence of scientific information, there are more than enough people and websites that are quite happy to advance whatever pseudoscientific agenda they like.  The choice is to simply let them go on, or to bring science into it and potentially provide real data.

As I mentioned before, I personally suspect that there is probably something there, but it is as variable and unreliable as "lie detection".  However, in the same vein, if science doesn't get in front of this, you can bank on the fact that someone will advance this idea as being reliable, and then don't be shocked when the politicians climb on board and begin legislating for it.  Once that occurs, science will never be able to provide enough data to convince those that have already convinced themselves.
The claim being made at the web site is certainly pseudoscience, since a claim is being made that is unsubstantiated.  However, the article is encouraging studies which would likely end up refuting the claims, and if there is something there, then at least put it on a scientific footing.

Well while we're at it why don't we also encourage scientific studies to see if witches sink or float with their hands tied behind their backs when they are thrown into deep water?
Make love not war
God you are ignorant! Did you even read the article completely or just get angry and go right to commenting. As the author stated, there are cases where a facial expression or disfigurement CAN be linked to a genetic disorder or environmental insult during conception.

What she is saying is to look at statistics and see if there COULD be a link between the two...and her methods don't involve drowning people to see if they float. In fact, if the pedosmile really exists, it could be used to isolate the defective gene that might cause pedophilia, and possibly treat the condition. This is far different from the puritans and their uninformed, unscientific way of proving someone was a witch.

Also how are you constructing the comparison of a witch and a pedophile? One is an innocent person practicing a religion...albeit one that small minded Christian people are afraid of...and the other is a criminal who has the capacity to destroy the psyche of a child. The two situations are not equivalent, and you are a fucking moron if you believe they are.

Also how are you constructing the comparison of a witch and a pedophile? One is an innocent person practicing a religion...albeit one that small minded Christian people are afraid of...and the other is a criminal who has the capacity to destroy the psyche of a child.
Try telling that to Hansel and Gretel. OK, that's just a fairy tale but if there were good and bad witches then Baba Yaga is an example of the hypothetical 'bad witch' cited in the Hansel and Gretel folklore. If she had really existed would she sink or float with her hands tied behind her back and is that a pedosmile on her face?

I have read the pseudoscience link and I think the idea of trying to identify a specific pedosmile is as stupid as the idea of trying to identify good and bad witches by whether they sink or float, OK?
Typical features of a pedosmile include tight, discoloured lips, visible tongue, concealed teeth, a cocked head, twisted facial features, a bald forehead, disheveled hair, and a general aura of faggotry
Make love not war
And the author isn't endorsing the Urban Dictionary definition of the pedosmile either. She is simply stating that there COULD be a connection...not that there IS a connection. The silly tom foolery of Urban Dictionary's definition merely gave her an idea. It is simply an untested hypothesis.

It could, as she stated...be indicative of a genetic complication or caused by an environmental insult during conception like children who are born of mothers who drank alcohol or used illicit drugs while pregnant or the distinct facial features of a child diagnosed with asspergers or autism. Or there could be no connection what so ever. She even covered that the "smile" could be an involuntary disguise to make themselves look friendly, and hide their guilt. In science (which you are clearly not very educated in), sometimes a great discovery is discovered by such a simple observation. She could be right, she could be wrong...she is not claiming either.

So perhaps you should get back to watching the idiot box before you hurt yourself thinking too hard.

It could, as she stated...be indicative of a genetic complication or caused by an environmental insult during conception like children who are born of mothers who drank alcohol or used illicit drugs while pregnant or the distinct facial features of a child diagnosed with asspergers or autism. Or there could be no connection what so ever.
Exactly, in which case it could be very damaging to those same people if they were misdiagnosed from a smile. Its hard enough for many of them to smile confidently as it is and if it isn't bad enough having an unusual smile, some misguided psychologist could then mistakenly diagnose them as pedophiles.

I am a crisis telephone counsellor and I spend many hours listening to very sad stories of lonely, depressed people who have often been repeatedly bullied, victimised and ostracised mainly because they didn't fit into societies 'norms' for whatever reason, physically, psychologically or socially. I am quite certain that introducing the concept of a 'scientifically' distinguishable  'pedosmile' to identify pedophiles is fraught with disaster and could further ostracise, depress and damage any remaining confidence of many of these people even more.
So perhaps you should get back to watching the idiot box before you hurt yourself thinking too hard.
Was that question really necessary?
Make love not war
You still don't get it! The pedosmile isn't supposed to be an indicator of pedophilia. It's a possible link to a larger issue. Essentially if there is a link between the two, it could point to what gene causes it (if there is one). In other words it could lead to a cure or a genetic "patch" so to speak.

It's not as if this type of smile would be used for police to go door to door looking for people that smile a certain way. It would just allow scientists to isolate the faulty gene if there is one.

On the other hand this could just be the same as the way stereotypes and racism emerge too. Humans look for patterns to avoid danger. If they see a pattern that is tied to something negative...they tend to avoid it. So chances are the hypothesis of the pedosmile isn't true, and if it isn't; the scientific method would prove it false or at the very least inconclusive. BUT...that doesn't make this article as terrible as you make it out to be.

It's not as if this type of smile would be used for police to go door to door looking for people that smile a certain way. It would just allow scientists to isolate the faulty gene if there is one.
How do you know that it wouldn't be used this way by the police? I can easily envisage policemen knocking on doors with a computerised gadget designed to scan and identify people with 'pedosmiles' by using facial recognition techniques, if there is a dangerous pedophile on the loose, just as they have also mistakenly used lie detectors for years in an attempt to identify liars.
The pedosmile isn't supposed to be an indicator of pedophilia. It's a possible link to a larger issue. Essentially if there is a link between the two, it could point to what gene causes it (if there is one). In other words it could lead to a cure or a genetic "patch" so to speak.
There's also quite a bit of evidence that many pedophiles claim to have been sexually assaulted themselves as children, though I suppose there could still be a genetic link if the pedophiles that assaulted them were genetically related.
Make love not war
It wouldn't be used that way by police because a facial expression isn't admissible in the court of law as a sign of guilt. With due process it takes more than that to label someone a criminal. A lie detector test alone doesn't show someone is a criminal either. Its that along with more evidence that might convict them. And plus this isn't a discovery that would lead to early identification of pedophiles...as the author herself said...having the attraction isn't criminal, but acting on it is.

If this discovery did lead to the ability to effectively "cure pedophilia", then people who wanted help could go and have something done about it. Those who want to rape children still would and they would get caught. Simple as that. Persecuting someone who hasn't done anything wrong as a child molester because of a facial expression would make about as much sense as persecuting someone who hasn't done anything wrong as a burglar just because of their skin color.

tldr; the discovery doesn't allow for early detection of pedophiles, it gives pedophiles who want help a chance to beat their fetish. When something causes a sexual reaction in someone, they don't always understand why it does. If the gene that might cause this facial disfigurement also causes pedophilia, then they could easily isolate the gene and effectively cure pedophilia. Understand?

Michael, I am in support of the need for more studies of the genetic and environmental factors that might be related and correlated to the development of pedophilia and its expression as child molestation. What I am questioning is the viability of even considering a smile or 'pedosmile' as being a significant identifiable factor and I find it difficult to understand how any scientific study can either confirm or disprove the notion of a pedosmile existing in its own right, as is being proposed as a possibility by Natalie and the websites that she has linked to.
In this article Natalie says the following about the hypothetical existence and use of the pedosmile  :-
The website claims that a person who is a pedophile can be spotted by looking for the “pedosmile” The pedosmile is widely recognized in our society and has even been defined in the “urban dictionary” The original website for the pedosmile includes a series of images of both pedophiles and non-pedophiles and asks the reader to guess which ones are which. The website’s owner is rather full of himself but, I have to admit I am wondering if he is on to something.
He is on to something, how?
why do I think the “pedosmile” might be important? Active pedophiles, or child molesters as I prefer to call them to distinguish them from those pedophiles who do not sexually assault children, are a rarely studied criminal type about which we know little or nothing. We are not very good at spotting them before they do terrible damage….By the same token, our society’s near hysterical fear of child molesters, means innocent people have been damaged by the mere accusation of being one. Exploring the pedosmile and its implications might improve that sorry situation.
Really, how can exploring the pedosmile improve that sorry situation?

Therefore, one possibility is that the “pedosmile” does exist and if it does it indicates that pedophilia has a purely genetic basis…And so maladaptive genes, or more likely genetic predispositions to maladaptive behaviours such as pedophilia, will be much more common in males than females simply because in females they are recessive and are therefore hidden.
How does the possible existence of a pedosmile indicate that pedophilia has a purely genetic basis?
Perhaps one symptom of this is the pedosmile. if there is a “pedosmile”, it may be due not to some gene for pedophilia but rather to some environmental insult that occurred before birth…If we knew that, we could potentially educate women to avoid this insult in pregnancy and possibly come up with some way to treat the damage.
How does the symptom of a pedosmile now indicate that an environmental insult has occurred?
It may be that the pedosmile, if it exists, is simply a useful disguise child molesters employ that they learned works, consciously or unconsciously, by simple trial and error.
How could the pedosmile's existence as a useful disguise possibly be scientifically tested for and proven?
Using school pictures, do a large retrospective analysis of convicted pedophiles from school age to adult compared with an appropriately matched control sample looking for evidence of the pedosmile. Facial recognition software should aid in that endeavor. If the pedosmile is present in childhood and predictive of pedophile offenses, then intense research should be undertaken to understand the biological, social and environmental inputs in its creation. Simultaneously, the pedosmile could be used to test therapies useful in treating younger adults otherwise destined to become child molesters.
How could the 'pedosmile' possibly be scientifically proved to be present in childhood and predictive of pedophile offences or be used to test therapies? I personally can't even get my head around the logistics of what Natalie is proposing here. At the end of the day all of this proposed scientific study revolves around the existence of a hypothetical pedosmile and how on earth can this possibly be scientifically distinguished from any other unusual smile? Wouldn't it be better to just study pedophilia in general and not confuse the issue with this hypothetical 'pedosmile' factor?
Make love not war
All I am saying is that in any scientific en-devour...we must look at all clues, pursue all leads, and see if the connection is factual or false. I mean...have you ever looked at someone and in the back of your head you felt fear? You feel the compulsion to get away from them? Like something isn't quite right with them? The human mind is adept on picking up on things like this. It is a survival mechanism, and the reason why stereo types and racism exist. If we perceive a pattern we use it to our advantage. Or in the scientists case, study it and see if anything comes of it.

Regardless, I can see your point and I am sorry for the ugly remarks I made...but I thought the witch hunt remark was a little much.

Thanks for the apology Michael and yes my witch hunt remark was also a bit over the top, sorry.
...have you ever looked at someone and in the back of your head you felt fear? You feel the compulsion to get away from them? Like something isn't quite right with them? The human mind is adept on picking up on things like this. It is a survival mechanism, and the reason why stereo types and racism exist.
Yes its not unusual for us to stereotype people and feel irrational fear, compulsions and racism towards others. That is why it is always good to know the facts. The following statistics were taken from the US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities and can be found at http://childprotection.lifetips.com/cat/63573/sex-offender-statistics/index.html :-
* Approximately 22% of child offenders reported having been sexually abused as a child.
* More than three-fourths of violent crimes against children occurred either in the offender's home or the victim's place of residence.
* Three out of four children who were victimized were female.
* In one year alone, approximately 4,300 child molesters in 15 states were released from confinement.  Of the 4,300 child molesters released, approximately 3.3% were rearrested within three years for another sex offense against a child.
* One-third of the convicted offenders had committed a crime against their own child.
* About half of the convicted offenders had a relationship with the child, either through friends or family.
* Only one out of seven inmates reported that their child victim was a stranger.
* Those inmates who were convicted of committing violent acts against children were more likely to have been white, a percentage of nearly 70%, than any other race.
* White inmates were nearly three times more likely to have victimized a child than black inmates.
* Nearly two-thirds of convicted child molesters and/or offenders were or had been married.
* Child molesters and offenders were more likely to have grown up in a two parent home and were more likely to have been molested as a child.
* Child molesters were on average approximately five years older than those sex offenders whose victims were adults.
* Approximately 25% of child molesters were age 40 or older.
* Younger inmates weren't as likely as older inmates to victimize children.
There are several websites where you can view the details by zip code of convicted sex offenders in the world, including the child molesters and their photos but you have to register and pay to get access. I wonder if there is much difference between the smile of a sex offender in general and a child molester? This is probably a good place to start looking, see https://orders.nationalalertregistry.com/landing1/

Make love not war
How do you know that it wouldn't be used this way by the police?
Well, all the more reason for the social sciences (and psychologists in particular) to get their act together and practice real science.  You know as well as I, the primary abusers of such ideas [as the pedosmile] are the therapists themselves.
...though I suppose there could still be a genetic link if the pedophiles that assaulted them were genetically related.
Genetics isn't destiny, so don't go down that path.  As I said from the beginning, this seems like a highly suspect process, however if it is gaining traction in the media and public, then it needs to be investigated, so that [at minimum] it can be thoroughly debunked.  The reason lie detectors are used, is because of the public perception that they work ... not because of science.  As a result, one can bullied into taking a lie detector test, simply because the media and public presume that you'll pass if you have nothing to hide.  It's complete rubbish, but it's precisely the kind of thing that also needs strong scientific attention to debunk it.
There is nothing wrong with that web site. I've been there many times and never had a warning. McAfee antivirus is garbage and should be avoided at all costs.

read the whole thing. and maddox's website is more for personal enjoyment then actual information. maddox meant this as a possibility not a science. and this person further took what maddox said and debunked a few theories about pedophila and child molestors. oh yeah and i doubt you read the whole article, bitch. if you had you wouldnt have displayed such a stupid opinion. P.s. maddox's website is one the safest on the net, he does his own encrypting and website maintenance. yep yep maddox the only man alive who knows how it is. published author of two best selling books. put that in your pipe and smoke it. peace.

For years I've refused to smile in my DMV photo because the picture invariably is snapped before I can complete the movement of my lips. Wow. Could something nefarious be leveled at me for my refusal to grin? As a parent and grandparent I applaud attempts to keep children safe from dangerous individuals, but this article was not convincing. Yes, I read the entire article, and I will not compare you to the Nazis nor doubt your educational qualifications, but I remain unconvinced.

...but I remain unconvinced.
As you well should be.  There is no science that supports this idea, and that's precisely why the article was emphasizing the need to bring science into it.  Without that, whatever pseudoscientific agenda someone wants to push is the only voice being heard.

Just like the issue around lie detectors, and other such social methods, it is too easy to engage in broad categorizations such that an individual is presumed guilty before anything has occurred.  Yet, this is precisely what is already being suggested by the website being quoted in the beginning of the article.

Therefore, if you aren't convinced (and I'm certainly not convinced that it is legitimate), then you should support scientific research that debunks these claims, rather than letting them lie because we think the subject is to sensitive for scrutiny.
The point in bringing up genocide and how this article is dangerous... as you all defending it have seemingly missed the freakin point... science, usually invaild science such as ideas like this one, are dangerous. This kind of lunacy is usually used and abused to support the creation laws that HARM people. The fact is in this country the definition. Of "sex offender" is used interchangeably with pedophile/child molester (and btw your definitions distinguishing both from each other are also incorrect as taken from psychological texts) and this "lump em all and dump em or kill em" mentality the author STATED CLEARLY in reply to me questioning her ethics is dangerous, volitile, and morally bankrupt. Everyone, regardless of the acts they have committed or the things they have done deserves the same chance to become a better part of society without being categorized because somone thinks they have a pedosmile"

YOU seem to have missed the point.  The website referred to already exists.  The pseudoscience you're afraid of, is already being published and used as a criteria.  The "sex offender" legal abuses already exist.

The article was specifically talking about scientific studies, which would likely serve to DEBUNK the idea rather than support it.  However, you are so intent on reading your own viewpoint into this, that you fail to see that all the concerns you're expressing are already occurring.
BTW ... your point in bringing up genocide ... is that there is no point.  It's a ridiculous assertion and even the most cursory examination of history will show that genocides occur for any imaginable reason (including religious), so don't hang that blame on science.
Everyone, regardless of the acts they have committed or the things they have done deserves the same chance to become a better part of society without being categorized because somone thinks they have a pedosmile"
No kidding, and when was it ever mentioned otherwise?  It's obvious that you have an axe to grind, so whatever is bugging you, it isn't from this article.
The point in bringing up genocide and how this article is dangerous... as you all defending it have seemingly missed the freakin point... science, usually invaild science such as ideas like this one, are dangerous. This kind of lunacy is usually used and abused to support the creation laws that HARM people. The fact is in this country the definition. Of "sex offender" is used interchangeably with pedophile/child molester (and btw your definitions distinguishing both from each other are also incorrect as taken from psychological texts) and this "lump em all and dump em or kill em" mentality the author STATED CLEARLY in reply to me questioning her ethics is dangerous, volitile, and morally bankrupt. Everyone, regardless of the acts they have committed or the things they have done deserves the same chance to become a better part of society without being categorized because somone thinks they have a pedosmile"

"_"sex offender" is used interchangeably with pedophile/child molester (and btw your definitions distinguishing both from each other are also incorrect as taken from psychological texts" I would love a citation to the textbooks you mention because every article I have seen on the topic clearly separates the person with the desire who does not act on it, from the offender who does. I also don't think I've seen topic well covered by any undergraduate textbook.
the problem i see with the notion of a pedosmile connection is that it seems to assume a constancy that may not be there-- or a single causality of pederasty.
as i think back to pederasts i've known and [not] loved, i distinctly recall that there were phenotype 'indications' in MANY, but far from all instances.
and many of those traits could be observed in folk that i personally cannot confirm were so inclined.
it is an interesting notion, worthy perhaps of exploration-- but we can already see how any mention of a genetic connection immediately shuts down reasoned discourse on the topic.

I absolutely agree with your points "NOT" particularly the shutting down of reasoned discourse. I also suspect that there are also more than one type as you said.
"Such an atmosphere is un-American, the most un-American thing we have to contend with today. It is the climate of a totalitarian country in which scientists are expected to change their theories to match changes in the police state's propaganda line."

[Stinging rebuke of J. Parnell Thomas, Chairman, House Committee on Un-American activities, who had attacked Dr. Condon (1 Mar 1948) as a weak link in American atomic security.]
— Harry S. Truman

Opening address (13 Sep 1953) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science where Condon would be elected as the new AAAS president.

I vaguely recall a statistic that girls are seven times more likely to be molested as a child than boys - so it's curious then that there aren't more women pedophiles if being molested turns you into an abuser.

I find the focus on male childhood abuse is often disproportionate to the attention given to girl childhood abuse - as if it's worse for a boy than a girl - when it's just bad for both -

I have suspected that molesting is more about power and dominance, like rape, than it is about sex.

So disempowered people have to molest others with less power than themselves - thus, children are the choice targets, since they are less powerful than any adult.

Those smiles are not by pedophiles, but by convicted child rapists. I mean, people convicted for RAPING CHILDREN will surely be creepy? Saying that because of that all pedophiles are "creepy" because of that is the same as saying that all heterosexuals are "creepy" because a women rapist might be...

Pedophilia IS a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Being attracted to children means having a particular sexual orientation, different from being straight or gay.

If you are "researching" pedophilia then this site is probably the best source: http://newgon.com/

Wow, are you off in the weeds.  If you think that website provides anything more than rationalizing an orientation that is unacceptable, you are definitely off someplace.
They do that to get link juice from our site, what we think of them is unimportant.
Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
It is very dangerous to look for pedophilic characteristics, because, we all should know that they are roaming where the children are : Daycenters,schools, playgrounds, juvenile sporting teams, and... famillies... and most of them are very very kind with children.

Brieve, the parents have to take care a lot about their children.
****
Are the pedophilic smile and face so different from what the hetero and mature men's smiles look when a bunch of men partying into a topless bar ???

Do you think is unacceptable to have a different sexual orientation? I think that you are off in the weeds if you think that. Who gave you the power to decide which sexual feelings of a certain human being are A-OK and which arent?

I dont think that someone can "rationalize" a sexual orientation anymore than you can rationalize yours. A sexual orientation is "irrational" (or better, "a-rational") per se. You dont have the right to judge the romantic fantasies or sexual orientation or whatever goes inside another person. First, because you cannot know what "truly" goes inside that person (unless you can read his/her mind, which I think you cant). Second, because even IF you could know what that person feels or thinks (and you cant), even then, you wouldnt have the right to judge that sexual orientation.

Whatever an individual has in their mind is irrelevant.  However a sexual orientation that is acted on is no longer a personal matter, so I do find some sexual orientations unacceptable in that respect.

Rape is unacceptable, as is sex with children.  Essentially any sexual orientation that results in an unwilling or "unable to consent" partner is fundamentally wrong.  I have every right to judge such fantasies and orientations.  If you have that in your head, then keep it there.  If not, then be prepared to be judged.

I am under no obligation to respect any thoughts or ideas that you don't retain as private.  So if you make them public, don't you dare question my "right" to judge them.
So do you think that people with a different sexual orientation should be kept silence and ostracized just because you think they dont have the right to speak out about their sexual orientation? Im sorry, but I think that everyone has the right to, at the very least, talk about their orientation.

" Essentially any sexual orientation that results in an unwilling or "unable to consent" partner is fundamentally wrong."

Yeah, the problem is that you are conflating two different concepts: "unwilling" (which belongs to reality" and "unable to consent" (which belongs to law). You are not saying that a sexual attraction (not orientation) is unnaceptable if it's about hurting people, you are saying that a sexual attraction is unacceptable if it is about 1) hurting people OR 2) going against the law, which are two completely different things.

You are basically downplaying a sexual orientation to a matter of law, a matter of to which people you are allowed by the law to have sex. And let me remind you that homosexuality was also against the law 100 years ago. So that proves that even if a sexual orientation is regarded as unacceptable by the law, that doesnt means is unacceptable per se.

They are not two different things, the law is the basis against which sexual orientation in being assessed regarding "unable" or "unwilling".  After all, why should unwilling matter without the law?  You claim that that is a matter of hurting people, but then you want to argue that someone to young to consent isn't being hurt?  That's ridiculous.

Ever seen what a pregnancy in a 12 year old girl does?

Moreover, I'm not inclined to grant people that want to take advantage of others a platform to voice their preferences or orientation.  Don't invoke gays or interracial, since those are orientations between consenting adults over which there is no quarrel.  I was quite clear on where I drew the lines.

You certainly wouldn't agree that someone that thinks murder is sexually stimulating should be indulged in their passion.  You certainly wouldn't agree that someone that thinks rape or violence is sexually stimulating should be indulged.

Sex with children is unacceptable and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that fact.  It isn't a matter of the law, it is a matter of human decency and biology.  Children are incapable of participating as willing sexual partners and anyone that claims otherwise is abusing their position as an adult.
Oh, and smiling is related to happiness; that should proly be mentioned. A lot o' folk won't stand for that!

This article has opened up an opportunity for meaningful discussion. I really like how the author differentiated those with pedophilic feelings and those give to those feelings to do harm to children. The shocking lack of meaningful discussion in the blog of this article shows that our society is not yet ready to meaningfully engage the topic. I believe that if people with pedophilic feelings had support groups that they could go to, a way of positively responding to those feelings, that child molestation would be reduced.

To the author of the article, let me add my own two bits. You said that pedophiles generally have, "lower IQ than the general population". Consider that the community of those who are sexually drawn to children but who do not act out are very difficult to identify and study. Could it be that intelligence is a protective factor allowing the more intellectually endowed the ability to override their feelings?

The claims of low IQ are based on studies of prisoners, which are clearly not representative of the larger population of pedophiles. The claims are, in short, ludicrous. I know many pedophiles online who demonstrate very high intelligence. Human neoteny even suggests that high intelligence and pedophilia are correlated.

There is, in fact, a large and growing network of support for pedophiles online. It is generally unsafe to seek such help offline, and of course mental health providers are generally to be avoided. It is notable that the author of this article is from a region long noted for rampant abuses in the mental health system and for a prolonged campaign of discrimination against several minorities. I have met more victims of psychiatric abuse from Quebec than from the rest of the world combined - and I haven't really met all that many people from Quebec.

One professional organization that has attempted to promote patient-centered mental health services for pedophiles is B4U-Act. http://www.b4uact.org/

t Please examine the Jehovah's Witnesses who go door to door and come on our property.

Jehovah's Witnesses pedophiles.
Many court documents and news events prove that Jehovah's Witnesses require two witnesses when a child comes forward with allegations of molestation within the congregation. Such allegations have customarily been treated as sins instead of crimes and are only reported to authorities when it is required to do so by law, (which varies by state).

It has also been shown that child molesters within the organization usually have not been identified to the congregation members or the public at large. These people engage in a door to door ministry, possibly exposing children to pedophiles.

The Watchtower corporation has paid out millions in settlement money already.
-- Danny Haszard abuse victim
FMI
http:// www.dannyhaszard.com

So, you're a decent person who got caught doing something which is harmless but which is socially unacceptable. You try to put on your best face and let everyone know that you're really a decent guy, but you're scared because you know that there is a lot of irrational hatred directed at you. What is the result? A sort of creepy smile: the combination of a forced smile with deep sadness and anxiety.

Note that most of the "pedosmiles" are mug shots, taken when the victim of discrimination has just been made the object of humiliation. It is probably just that simple.

The author of this hit piece incidentally follows the traditional pattern, by simply asserting that adult-child sexuality is bad without providing any actual evidence. When one is reduced to argument by assertion, perhaps one ought to reconsider whether they really have an argument. She also confuses pedophilia (a sexual orientation) with child molestation (the act of bothering a child), and confuses consensual acts with rape. It's par for the course, but it bears repeating that all these assumptions are wrong.

The author's interest in Genetic Epidemiology is to be commended - it is an important and intriguing field and there is much we do not yet know - but this apparent inability to rise above even the simplest of cognitive distortions does not augur well for her future research. I sincerely hope that I can be disproved on this account.

You're definitive proof that people can find a way to rationalize anything.
...by simply asserting that adult-child sexuality is bad without providing any actual evidence.
I can't imagine a more self-serving, irrational statement.  It's little wonder that people with such a mind-set are vilified and despised.  You should be.
I'm not the one making an unsupported claim. What is irrational is getting upset because someone questions an unsupported claim.

It's true that this claim is commonly believed to be true in modern, Western nations - but then, there were times and places where the beliefs that the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, and that salamanders and maggots arose through abiogenesis, were commonly believed to be true.

Nonetheless, there is no credible supporting evidence for this theory, and considerable evidence against it.

Yours is the path to child slavery.

History is full of examples of capable children. The fiction of juvenile disability is a product of the 20th century attempts to control the population.

The studies mentioned by Rind were all deeply flawed, if anyone cares to look at them. The whole point of Rind was to point this out.

Whereas you seem to lack an understanding of the scientific method, and prefer a faith-based approach to science, this concludes this discussion.

Oh, please stop pretending as if you want to "save" children.  Yours is a self-serving, self-centered philosophy that doesn't care one iota about a child's welfare.  There is little doubt what your motivation is, and most assuredly, the interests of the child is not one of the driving forces here.  Your statements have clearly illustrated that yours is a purely selfish motivation and that you have nothing of consequence to say beyond flinging around wild, absurd arguments regarding scientific evidence and "faith-based" approaches.  You are a despicable human being.
"History is full of examples of capable children"

Haha, like what, the Children's Crusade? You're a fucking idiot.

I liked the article. It was very detailed and it clearly stated the risks about saying there is such thing as a pedosmile and that pedophiles can be recognized solely through it ( which by the way the author never said it was so). I don't know where people got most of the information they're talking about in the comments, I honestey didnt see anything wrong with what was said. People should be humble and understand that unless they are educated in this area, they should not flame the author, as they have no authority or knowledge to do so.

The author is a moron and a fool. Even discussing a topic like this based off of a ludicrous comment on some obscure hate filled web site... I just don't get it. How convoluted and twisted even using it as a platform to discuss pedophilia. And most of the replies to it seem extremely well educted, except for those defending this author who clearly got her phd off a cereal box. Thank the lord I'm not one of her patients. Id be worse off than when I went in from the looks of this. To the last poster... seriously "clearly stated the risks" of a pedosmile? Are u serious? And who are you to say that the others posting here aren't educated.

Science has always been used to advance state agenda and abuse law. This is just another prime example of how it gets started.... nothing more. Just like registries makes us all safer.... ok, you sheeple go on believing that when 95% of all sex offenses are committed by people you know. Not the creepy guy with a weird smile across the street.

OK, so you've got an agenda.  So, whatever criticism you may have had, just lost all credibility when you elected to delve into conspiracy land with your "state agenda" comment.
I'm astonished by the general comments being made on this page. This environment is literally acrid with ignorance. Why can't people read the entire article, logically weigh the information contained within it, and take an informed stance on it, as opposed becoming livid at the mere thought of the subject matter and going off on sensationalist, uncorrelated, ignorant rants in which the author is compared Hitler, accused of having an agenda, or has her academic qualifications questioned and/or downright insulted (despite being obviously incapable of obtaining a PhD of any kind themselves)? It's like some people lack the cognitive capacity to actually think. In fact, some people seem to actively guard against it, deliberately shrouding themselves in a veil of utter ignorance, as if to avoid some sort of allergic reaction catalyzed by logic and reason. Sigh.

"Thank the lord"

And there it is the reason for your small mindedness you need to get off your high horse and separate faith from science they do not belong anywhere near each other

"We also know gender identity is fixed before birth as evidenced by the miserably failed experiments of changing boys to girls after some mishap causes them to lose the penis as infants."

This sentence is inaccurate and does NOT take into account transexuality.

the root is you always wanted to hump that girl in elementary school, and you grow up and you still want to hump said girl?

I am astonished at all of this bashing of the article. It blows my mind that the majority of you are defending pedophiles and child molesters. To hell with their rights, they are not human beings and neither are any of you. I thought it was an interesting read. One of the posts was trying to draw a line with Jews of WWII by making them wear special shirts or whatever to identify sex offenders in public.You did make a point in your garbage rant. I believe child molesters and other sex offenders should have special arm bands that let people know who they are and what they are about. I see nothing wrong with "rounding them up" and having them shot in my opinion. Not Jews, nor anyone else, just them. There is a valid reason as to why the majority of convicts (even the murderers) universally hate pedophiles in prison. No matter what race or religious group they belong to. Anyone here who is defending the rights of perverts seriously needs to get their heads examined and do some soul searching. There is no room in our society for the likes of perverts. As well as the sub humans who defend their rights. I am not sure who is worse. Makes me sick.......

I found this article fascinating. It is unfortunate that the study of genetics is so closely associated with Nazism, and it is unfortunate that many people are not capable of separating their political agenda from scientific knowledge. I would like to see more research done on the connection between facial appearance and behavior, not just for pedophiles but for people in general.

This concept is ridiculously absurd. To take an article from a clearly satirical website--that makes such a superficial claim backed with many statistical flaws (n=19 is the most easily seen)--then claiming that this deserves more research has me wondering if Natalie herself is interested with joining Mr. Maddox as another satirist herself. What many of the previous posters have tried to mention, but failed to articulate, is that eugenics was considered a legitimate form of science amongst many respected European and some American academics up to almost the mid C20. Eugenics legitimizes racial and ethnic discrimination based upon differences in phenotypical expression that reflect either superiority and inferiority of a population. Respected researchers--scientists, statisticians and biological anthropologists have since demonstrated reasonably that this archaic epistemology has no legitimate scientific foundation. To actually take seriously Mr. Maddox's (I am fan of his, actually) satirical claim in this regard is tantamount to advancing some perverse blend of neoeugenics as well as the also archaic biological theories of criminal offending. The respected scientific academic community has discarded these because they are not useful and are ethically questionable.

All types of people have goofy smiles and moreover take poor pictures: who do not touch children. But let's leave logic aside and pursue this anyway. By what and who's criterion are we supposed to evaluate such a "pedosmile?" Assuredly, individual and even cultural differences of perception would likely make for a rather complicated and subjective mess for a standard of evaluation. I wonder how such a talented scholar might put together her research methods and analyses? Using a flawed research plan with non-randomized samples with poorly planned studies might find quantifiable standards with the appearance of legitimacy and statistical significance--even if we all should know that correlation is not necessarily causation. Unfortunately, most in the media as well as lay followers of pop science are quite ignorant of how to actually critically analyze "pseudoscience." They believe it and then we do get a 'witch-hunt' where anyone with a superficial deviation (the pedosmile) from whatever is defined as the "norm" becomes suspect. What about child-touchers who have Hollywood smiles? Hmm, Michael Jackson? Perhaps we need to think ahead about the sociological impacts of flawed science before we advance pursuing such a trite concept. Also, we should not waste valuable resources, time and energy that should be spent pursuing legitimate and useful research to better understand and eliminate the problem of child sex offenders.

This is in the category of embodied cognition. This can also be easily carried out by downloading the pictures from one of the many felony registry/mugshot databases (http://www.familywatchdog.us/). Download all of the pictures of child-sex offenders, download all of the pictures of non-sex offenders criminals, run a survey on Amazon Turk.

Go for it.

Wow, all this discussion over the suggesting of a scientific study that will more than likely disprove the idea of a pedosmile. First off, she clearly discusses the difference between pedophiles and child molesters (for those of you who missed it). She isn't supporting the initial article posted (just using it as a reference). She doesn't necessarily agree with the idea of a "pedosmile" but supports the idea of proving or disproving it (which in the long run will more than likely be disproved and help negate the concept entirely). She simply discusses the possibility that pedophilia could be genetic but doesn't claim that it is. Sexual orientation is something that is already being researched in this way anyway. Oh and anyone who thinks that the pedophile sexual orientation is acceptable... I don't have words for that. Any person with an iota of sense knows that a child can not make decisions for themself because of a lack of experience, mental conditioning, and general common sense. Also noting that a child's body is not built to handle such actions is also something to note. Maybe we should start endorsing dendrophilia or necrophilia... sound good to you guys?

i love how so many fail to see the connection between a pedo and a child molester, pedo is but one step from child molestation.Now of course judging or attempting to judge based on a smile may sound absurd, but its not entirely impossible to be linked to a genetic disposition for pedophilia, but as the OP said, we are so scared of the thought of child molestation that we fail to see the very close connection between a pedo and child molester, this is why america is becoming dumber and dumber.For those of you saying being a pedo is ok..really.. so its ok in your mind for a 40+ yr old to eyeball your 5-7 yr old sons or daughters, because they don't act on it? Really? You are all that dense/afraid to hurt someones feelings.

For those of you saying being a pedo is ok..really.. so its ok in your mind for a 40+ yr old to eyeball your 5-7 yr old sons or daughters, because they don't act on it?
Are you being intentionally stupid?  Whether you like it or not, what crime has been committed?  While you may find the whole thing disgusting, what is your basis for thinking that these people should be incarcerated or killed?

I find it just as disgusting that someone would beat their child and put them in a hospital and yet I'll bet that most people wouldn't react as vehemently to that.  Should people then be incarcerated because they've thought about beating a child?

Perhaps we could argue about how responsible parents are that dress up their little girls in clothes, hair, and makeup to look like adults?  Well, we can't do that because what would happen to beauty pageants [whose sole purpose seems to be to have 40+ yr old men eyeballing 5-7 year old girls].

No one has said that being a pedophile is OK.  However, we have the problem that some people will be born with such a sexual orientation and tendencies.  Now, since such an orientation isn't displayed on someone's forehead, we have to consider how we {our society] deal with such individuals.  If they haven't done anything wrong, then it isn't right to criminalize them simply because you find their mental processes offensive.

If someone has such thoughts and seeks treatment ... do you really think that they should have their rights violated and privacy invaded because they sought treatment?  Do you think that you've served some justice by incarcerating someone that hasn't committed a crime, simply because of their thoughts?  Perhaps, as some previous poster suggested, they should just be gathered up and shot?  Do you think that will address any problems?

LMAO, deep discussion over Maddox article = you've all been trolled

Not strong on the reading comprehension part, eh?
Did any of you dimwits actually read this article? After reading a number of the comments here, every has clearly just stopped to shoot off a message the first time something popped up in this that they didn't agree with. The author makes a clear distinction between active pedophiles and inactive pedophiles, yet there are people 'calling them out' saying the author makes no distinction what so ever.
Most of this conversation seems to have been sparked from the use of the word 'faggotry' by Maddox, a satirical writer. The author quotes the introductory paragraph of Maddox's article, then states in the next paragraph that he/she does not agree with the choice of words or see any problem with sexuality; yet you drooling retards need this shit spoonfed to you despite that..

Quit defending your vapid beliefs - it's unimportant, and quite frankly this isn't the forum for it. It'd be amazing to come to an article about topics such as these and discuss the development of the pedophiles brain and the myriad of reasons that make them who they are - but no, we're stuck with a bunch of semi-literate ketchup-bottle-brained fuckwits arguing over sexuality. Move on people, it's the internet, you're not going to convince anyone so step down from your moral highground, participate in the actual topic or shut the fuck up and let the rest of us enjoy the purpose of this forum: To discuss the questions raised by the author.

Holy shit, half you people on here are retarded. Pedophilia has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation, and it never will. And if someone wants to be gay, it's their right to be gay. It's your right to protect your assholes and leave it at that. I have never seen more primitive people on a "modern" website. Get fucking real.

Pedophilia has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation...
Oh I can't wait to hear this brilliant analysis.
Oh my balls, you are a fucking genius. Let me dumb this down for you. Pedophilia is the attraction to young kids, whether or not they are male or female. Not all pedophiles are gay and not all pedophiles are straight. Hope I cleared some things up for you. And I'm not surprised that I have to explain this to one of this website's members.

As I thought.  It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, until you define it to be specifically about sexual orientation.  Yeah ... you "dumbed" it down alright.

Let me try to make it simpler for you.  The attraction an individual has is what's referred to as their "sexual orientation".  You seem to be exclusively hung up on whether it has anything to do with being gay.  Believe it or not, that isn't the only orientation in the world.
You are right, pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, but a perversion. Most of pedos are in fact cryptopedo and live unsatisfied sexual life with mature women.

I forgot to say that divorced fathers who have young kids living with their ex-wives have to pay attention at the men attending the new single women.

Science 2 appears to be the intellectual equivalent of Fox News, but without the content.

LMAO. A pedosmile? Uh.... how about the idiots (probably pedophiles with nice smiles trying to avert blame) simply took offkilter pics of offkilter pedophiles and put them up against normals.... So of course the results were off kilter as well. Pedophiles have no social/income class, no physically discernible characteristics any different than anyone. There are just as many pedophiles on the bench, on the police force, on the city council, holding governorship's, teaching positions, etc., etc., as there are hauling trash, on welfare, etc....

Trust me, from somebody who inadvertently married into a mega wealthy high class clan of em.... : (

I am a prison officer, and some of this I believe to be true, they do all have a particular look compared to the mainstream prisoners we look after.

Sorry, but that's personal bias.  The concept of the "pedosmile" was posted as pseudoscientific nonsense [i.e. it was a hoax].

On the other hand, given what you now of their criminal charges, and couple that with the implicit knowledge of how such inmates are treated in prison, do you think that might have something to do with how they "look" and behave?