I think you could have come up with the same answer via a little judicious research yesterday.
No doubt. But I preferred to talk to a vastly experienced professional in the field whom I knew personally and therefore, because of his track record, felt I could trust, rather than take the word of authorities I don't know. Of course, one often is in the latter position of necessity, but this time I was not and decided I should take advantage of that fact.
No doubt you could have Googled the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. It's not exactly unavailable on the web.
If you have never really dealt with the fallout from adults who prey on children for sex, then I apologize. But I think the ages of Sandusky's victims kind of spells things out. (8, 10, etc.)
Yes, but as I said, I preferred to talk to a real person in the field whom I knew and trusted and who also could respond to any questions I might want to ask. Further, while the iterations of the DSM over the years all strive to be "scientific," in some areas they also are or can be "political" (i.e. responsive to various societal pressures), and I wanted to talk to someone whom I thought would tell me the truth as he saw it regardless of whose nose might be put out of joint, my own included.
Well, no doubt you could have just not done that and taken your beating like the insensitive oppressor you so clearly are. :g:g:g.