some children that have sex turn into pedophiles, not all but is it right for you to take that chance on them, ive thought about this very much myself and i think things like well i could tell them how to not turn into one, and things like that.

But it is not proven that sex as a child "turns you" into a paedophile.

Basically, it has never been shown that people who had sex as children are paedophiles in any higher rate than people who did not. Meaning that it would be irrelevant to sexual orientation as an adult.

Every case of a paedophile who had sex as a child is always blown out of proportion because it gives a story that "Mr S. had sex as a child; Mr S., now adult, is a paedophile" which makes an anecdote trying to imply a generalisation that was never tested as such. Otoh, all the kids who had sex as children and who are now exclusively adult oriented don't appear on TV or on shrink journals - because nobody has a political agenda to establish that sex as children turns you into a hetero or a gay. Although that wasn't always true: go back in time long enough and you'll see that people in all seriousness affirmed that sex as a child "turns you into a homo"...


What do you mean by variable isolation?

From English Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(statistics)

[All emphasis mine]

Factors jeopardizing validity

Campbell and Stanley (1963) define internal validity as the basic requirements for an experiment to be interpretable — did the experiment make a difference in this instance? External validity addresses the question of generalizability — to whom can we generalize this experiment's findings?

internal validity

Eight extraneous variables can interfere with internal validity:

1. History, the specific events occurring between the first and second measurements in addition to the experimental variables

2. Maturation, processes within the participants as a function of the passage of time (not specific to particular events), e.g., growing older, hungrier, more tired, and so on.

3. Testing, the effects of taking a test upon the scores of a second testing.

4. Instrumentation, changes in calibration of a measurement tool or changes in the observers or scorers may produce changes in the obtained measurements.

5. Statistical regression, operating where groups have been selected on the basis of their extreme scores.

6. Selection, biases resulting from differential selection of respondents for the comparison groups.

7. Experimental mortality, or differential loss of respondents from the comparison groups.

8. Selection-maturation interaction, etc. e.g., in multiple-group quasi-experimental designs

external validity

Four factors jeopardizing external validity or representativeness are:

9. Reactive or interaction effect of testing, a pretest might increase the scores on a posttest

10. Interaction effects of selection biases and the experimental variable.

11. Reactive effects of experimental arrangements, which would preclude generalization about the effect of the experimental variable upon persons being exposed to it in non-experimental settings

12. Multiple-treatment interference, where effects of earlier treatments are not erasable.

All of the underlines apply to the works that have tried to prove inevitable harm happening. Solve the methodological issues and you will no longer have a case.

I have read on the internet that there is allways some damage done to the child.

As above - I've never read any such claim that does not have methodological problems that prevent the result from being generalisable.

It's as simple as that.