Basically what it says on the tin. Having read though some of the materials on the issue, I am baffled by how recklessly the word is used, given the consequences of such usage.
Pedophiles are the people with sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It doesn’t matter whether they do or don’t act on that attraction; in fact, many don’t. It is a sexual interest/mental condition that cannot be reliably changed.
Child molesters, on the other hand, are not necessarily pedophiles - in fact, 50 to 75% of child molesters do not have pedophilic interest.
Both facts can be sourced from the respective Wikipedia article and more info can be found in respective research.
Why does this matter?
Because the current use of the word reinforces stigma around pedophilia and makes it less likely for people with pedophilic disorder to reach out for help for the fear they would be outed and treated the same as actual child abusers.
This, in turn, makes those in a vulnerable position more likely to cross the line and get into the category of child abusers instead of coming for help. Also, it heavily affects people who did nothing to deserve such treatment.
What should we do?
We should leave the word “pedophile” to the context in which it belongs, which is the mental health and sexuality spheres, and avoid using the term to describe sexual offenders against minors. At the very least, one would most likely be wrong. At most, one would participate in the cycle of child abuse.
You must log in or register to comment.
Agreed. This is a pet peeve of mine. Pedophilia is not a crime. Child molestation is a crime. It makes it hard for pedophiles to get the treatment they need and we lose focus on the real danger, people who actually touch children.
Removed by mod
Until someone commits a crime, they should not be harmed or punished.
Pedophilia is not a sexuality.
It’s a sexual preference, which you don’t have much of a say over. However, the difference is that people don’t act on it, mostly, otherwise they’d then be an abuser/rapist.
You have the same barn door attitude as my simpleton father.
I’m confused by that last sentence. It took a WILD swing out of right field. Are you saying your dad is attracted to barn animals, and you’re accusing the other guy of that too?
I’m confused that anyone, anyone, would defend wanting to fuck, or outright fucking CHILDREN. And puberty is still childhood.
I’m not defending that. I just don’t understand what he’s talking about barn doors for. It came out of nowhere.
A “barn door attitude” is a idiom. I’ve only ever heard it to mean that you can’t keep your opinions together and they’re an open and paradoxical mess. Not sure what it means in other contexts.
Not all pedophiles consume child abuse material; some are okay with fantasies, some others resort to fictional materials (loli/shota drawings, and, recently, AI art generated with adult-based training data)
OP layed out above why with a shitty attitude like yours, you create a more harmful environment for children.
I’m actually okay with lynching…
No
This is a prime example of what the community is about.
With that said, advocating violence (read: not justice) will not be tolerated. Vigilante mindsets will not be allowed.
Really getting tired of removing comments calling for death. Advocate for strict justice, not death itself.
Thank you for your efforts!
If one assumes that merely by being a pedophile someone is danger to kids then by the same logic being a heterosexual is a danger to the opposite sex.
Most people in jail for raping children are “normal” rapists with no specific interest towards kids. They’re just an easy target. Being able to rape someone requires a special kind of twisted mind. Just being sexually interested about it alone in general isn’t enough. Many people have sexual interests they’re not going to pursue for moral reasons. Pedophiles can and usually do have morals as well.
I think your conclusion here is a sound one, but I don’t know if the logic works. Because for a heterosexual teleiophile, there are multiple legitimate avenues for outlet. Paedophiles do not have any legitimate outlets that don’t cause harm.
What is that argument? Do you need an “outlet” or you’ll eventually become a rapist? I think many people spend years/decades without sex and they don’t suddenly become unstable.
The argument is purely in demonstrating an obvious difference between teleiophiles (i.e., normal people) and paedophiles. Any attempt to conclude something broader than that would be a mistake.
By using the word “outlet” you’re implying some sort of emotional buildup. Otherwise you’re not saying anything at all and your comment is pointless (no offence!).
That’s true which is why I argue that demonizing AI CP and child size sex dolls just makes the problem worse. Yeah it’s fucked up but the alternative is even more so.
It’s an area that would be worthy of research, though I have no idea how you would conduct that research. I’ve heard that claim before, but I’ve also heard the claim that it could actually make them more likely to offend, because it actually doesn’t (these people allege) act as an “outlet” in the way I described before, but instead actually acts to normalise it for them. Which is true? I have no idea. That’s the research that would be needed.
Fair point!
Though, as many pedophiles are also into adults (i.e. are non-exclusive), I may assume they do not live a celibate life. Some do, though.
I also wonder if priests being common offenders is driven by celibacy and unavailability of any sexual outlet.
I also wonder if priests being common offenders is driven by celibacy and unavailability of any sexual outlet.
It’s a good question, and one that’s frequently raised. I dunno if it’s actually supported by evidence though. Do priests actually commit child sexual abuse at a higher rate than other jobs with positions of authority over children? Not a rhetorical question: I don’t know the answer, and I think it would be a very important data point in helping answer the question you raised. I’ve always viewed the biggest problem with priests being their proclivity for protecting each other’s abuses, and the highly systemic manner in which those abuses and cover-ups have sometimes taken place. It’s a stark contrast from, say, teachers, where it does happen, but any time it’s caught the punishment is far more severe.
Uhhh… have you heard the bear vs man argument going around? Many women believe being alone with any man is dangerous - that “logic” is already well established.
Wowza. You really missed the point of the man vs bear discourse.
Yeah!
Oh no, here we go again!
My unpopular opinion is that pedophilia is a paraphilia and not necessarily a mental condition, even though some cases do manifest that way. But maybe I’m wrong. Please, go easy with the lynching.
True!
Pedophilia by itself is not considered to be a disorder starting with DSM-V/ICD-11.
However, if pedophilic thoughts cause distress or may lead to dangerous behaviors, it is seen as a pedophilic disorder, which remains in both medical classifications.
Should have made this point clear.
Should have made this point clear
Oh, not at all! I just felt like stirring up some controversy 😈 But thanks for clarifying anyway!
If child molesters don’t have sexual interests. Why do they molest children? If they don’t have pedophilic interests why would they be more likely to cross the line? Sorry I’m just a bit confused.
Power. Not a bad question
Rape is depressingly common during and after the invasion of a territory. You know what victims are overwhelmingly targeted? NOT the most vulnerable (children, elderly, prisoners, mentally ill), it’s women. These sick freaks may get off on the power of the act, but don’t pretend they don’t have a preference. I think to truly stop this from happening we can’t be reductive, we need to follow the science wherever it leads…
Most commonly severe sexual deprivation multiplied by antisocial tendencies and the ease of abusing a minor vs an adult.
Also in violent cases, similarly to adult rape, a sense of power over the victim.
On the point of “more likely” - pedophiles are still more likely to be child abusers; it’s 1-5% of male population responsible for 25-50% of child abuse. Statistics is fun.
Removed by mod
Fuck off with that hebephelia and ephebophilia isn’t pedophila bullshit.
A lot of people commenting here need to be on a watch list.
I mean… that’s the entire point of the post. You’re throwing everything under the same umbrella without seeing any nuance because you just want a bad guy to vilify.
The distinction between pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia is so one can understand why that attraction occurs and how to overcome it. If all you do is throw a book at someone and say “bad” you train them to hide it away instead of seeking help to fix it.
It can’t be overcome. It’s hardwired. That’s the whole fucking point.
One great about society today is that we can talk about mental health as real health. But when you get into these topics, it starts to break down. Suddenly now they are all criminals.
A good friend worked in a residential facility for people with troubled sexual issues. It’s just like any other mental health issue. Not every depressed person commits suicide. Not every schizophrenic does wild things in public. But once you broach the topic of pedophilies, nobody wants to admit that there are non-offenders who manage their mental illness out there
I don’t have the context of the deleted comment but no, that’s not really what I got from the post.
Pedophilia, in the literature, is typically used as an umbrella term used to refer to attraction to minors. Intanophillia is a thing too. Hebe, infanto, ephebe, etc all really boil down to an attraction to an age group.
This post is about the difference between attraction and molestation.
That never was about hebephilia, ephebophilia etc.
It was about the fact that most child abusers are not primarily attracted to any minors. Like, at all. Like, they are into adults.
Pedophiles are bad people. Regardless of if they have ‘offended’ or not. I’m okay with chemically, or physically castrating them to help remove those urges, or putting them to death. I don’t care about their feelings or if they’re mixed up with child molesters.
This is a very basic view of the world.
Attraction is not a choice. If you believe it is, tell me when you chose to be attracted to whatever floats your boat.
What I’m attracted to includes consent.
Being attracted to something that can’t consent is not alike other attractions.
Edit downvotes from people who think consent is optional.
The attraction is not defined by the consent of the other party. You would be attracted to the same people even if dating them would hurt them. You’re just lucky not to, it never was a moral choice.
Now what is a moral choice is what you do with such attraction. And celibacy in relation to such potentially damaging attraction is the only moral option.
ignoring his BS (because he is full of shit), consent specifically IS attractive to some. I’m one of them. It’s not a factor on its own, like how Tarantino might like feet, but he likes ‘adult women feet’, I like ‘adult women consent’.
I had an ex who wanted to roleplay a rape fantasy. I actively couldn’t do it. Her "no"s made me soft. Despite intellectually knowing it was a game.
So yes: consent can very much be a major point of attraction.
You conflate attraction to certain people with sexual preferences, although we don’t have much control over either of them. For example, you cannot force yourself to be more assertive, sadistic, and dominant, and that’s okay. Same way, some people, like your ex, cannot help but enjoy such power play.
But even still, those two are different. If tomorrow you’d figure out that any sexual interaction, even seemingly consensual, with adult women hurts them, would you immediately stop having any sexual fantasies towards women forever and ever? You may have guilt about it, but you’ll still find yourself attracted, even if repulsed at the same time. You will absolutely learn not to sexually interact with women - I’m pretty sure of that - but the desire will remain.
This is exactly what it is.
The point is that variety of attraction is not ok. It is not like any other attractions
Edit it should not be normalized or accepted. It should be treated as a critical issue.
It should be treated like “you’re not bad for having that, but you’ll absolutely be bad if you act on it”.
We should always highlight that attraction itself is natural and just happens, but what differentiates between it and other attractions is that you really really shouldn’t pursue anything based on it.
It should not be normalized like any other attraction. It should be treated as a critical illness
Edit seriously y’all are way to casual with this shit.
Edit edit
Being a pedo is not like being straight or gay or liking a particular hair style or something. It’s a sickness no matter what semantic circles people want to run.
According to the modern, 11th, edition of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), curated by World Health Organization, as well as American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, modern 5th edition (DSM-5), pedophilia is not an illness.
Literally the medical world says it’s not.
But, at the end of the day, it doesn’t even matter much. The point is - pedophiles need support, not more stigma, to find help and live a good life without hurting anybody.
I love how you entirely agree with everything OP wrote, but still want to argue anyway.
no-one is being casual.
no-one is talking about normalising anything.
it’s always been said to be a sickness, which was the entire point of the post. it’s a sickness.
sicknesses are not their fault. sicknesses should be treated. This is a discussion about a way to help deal with the sickness that also reduces children getting abused at the same time.
Right, which is why we seek non-punitive ways to help correct that attraction.
A thing doesn’t not have to be universally equal to be similar to another.
Don’t disagree with finding ways to help people. In this or my other comment I never said pedos aren’t deserving of medical treatment
Edit but my point was that not all attractions are valid. Only consent based attractions are valid.
Pedophiles are people who randomly happen to have an interest in children. They can’t do much about it; they can remove the sexual element (but not romantic one) by chemical castration, but most of them also experience attraction to adults, which will also get cut off.
In any case, this will feed into frustration, which may have other negative consequences.
Killing all pedophiles is not only inhumane, but also unfeasible, since you cannot separate them from others. And this won’t remove the trait of pedophilia from the population; for all we know, the nature of pedophilia is not purely genetic.
It’s also a self-defeating strategy. If it means paedophiles can’t come forward to their therapist for fear of facing severe consequences, they…won’t come forward. And won’t get treatment to help them deal without causing harm. And will thus end up more likely to cause harm.
Exactly!
Which is what my argument is all about.
Ironically, if we want to protect kids, we have to get more understanding of the phenomenon of pedophilia.
Good truly unpopular opinion, and mostly good discussion on the points made. That said, I think pretty much all the points that were going to be made have been made. Locking thread.
Removed by mod
The very point I’m making is that stigma, in fact, does not help prevent acts of abuse; quite to the contrary.
You cannot identify every pedophile and kill them, nor will that help because this trait randomly emerges in the population again and again.
But you can force them into isolation, which will force them to select unhealthy coping mechanisms, including actual offenses against minors, instead of going for help to prevent their behaviors.
Professional, judgement-free help is the only thing that is actually known to help. And we won’t get them there without accepting those who chose to never hurt anyone.
You cool with gay conversion camps too?
No, conversion doesn’t work, we should just shoot them all, obviously /s
Nothing wrong with being gay plenty wrong with wanting to fuck kids.
Both kinds of conversion are literally impossible.
Because the current use of the word reinforces stigma around pedophilia and makes it less likely for people with pedophilic disorder to reach out for help for the fear they would be outed and treated the same as actual child abusers.
This is a semantic argument. Words change all the time; it’s OK. It’s especially common for clinical words to move into the pubic domain where they loose their clinical usefulness and even become pejorative. We just need a new word to describe the thing you’re talking about.
There is no power in the spoken syllables or the written configuration of the word pedophile. Any other word will do just as well. Trying to prevent language shift is wrestling the tide.
There is an umbrella term for all people attracted to all ages of minors: minor-attracted person (MAP). This term was often used not only as a more clinically correct one, but also as a less stigmatized word.
As a result, this word got stigmatized too, because the underlying issue has not been solved.
The problem lies in why that term was re-appropriated in the first place.
It’s easier to just ignore the distinction entirely and throw everyone under the same bus. It promotes hysteria and makes people easier to control. Easier to tell everyone “won’t someone please think of the children” instead of actually putting thought into the problem and seeking actual resolution.
Sure, we could find a new term… but until we solve the underlying reason for it’s mis-appropriation in the first place, it’s never going to stick.
This bit scratches the surface and is a giggle. 😁
For many, pedophiles, or whatever other minor-philes are akin to Nazis or something else universally reviled.
There’s no perceptive redemption or discussion.
For many, including me, that’s fine.
Consent is mandatory, anything outside it is a done discussion. I understand the discussion on precrime, as related to non offending attraction, but for many the mere thoughts earn the end of tolerance.
As such, policing language to be tolerant of that group is a non starter.
Edit Do note I never called for lynchings or purges or minority report arrests. The law should cover all equally.
When I think about how many famous, powerful people have been outed as child molesters, it definitely seems to me that pedophilia is something that can develop within people. I don’t think that pedophiles tend to become famous, nor do I think that the trend among powerful people is reflected in the general population.
From the wikipedia article
There are motives for child sexual abuse that are unrelated to pedophilia, such as stress, marital problems, the unavailability of an adult partner, general anti-social tendencies, high sex drive or alcohol use.
This seems crazy to me and I don’t think any of it explains why so many powerful people actively seek to molest children. Treating pedophilia as a condition or as a quirk in one’s sexuality seems dangerous to me. You can like petite people, you can do schoolgirl roleplay or whatever you want with a consenting adult. Don’t even think about kids. That should be an immediate red light in anyone’s brain.
But, it is an actual mental condition/mental illness/mental disorder. Just like what op said, there are, in fact, a lot of people that are attracted to kids that know it’s wrong and don’t act on those thoughts. They can not control having those thoughts in the same way that I can see a beautiful woman and am immediately attracted to them.
In some peoples’ brains it’s just not. Attraction works in a way that doesn’t ask you for your stance.
And among wealthy and powerful, there are plenty of sociopaths who would abuse a child without being pedophilic per se. Also, if you check the age of their victims, this is most commonly post-puberty minors, and attraction to those is highly common in an adult population.
There is currently no evidence that pedophilia can be developed, except for the fact that there’s an elevated percentage of pedophiles among people who have survived child sexual abuse as minors themselves.
Nope. Pedophiles are child molesters. Something you want to tell us?
Certified lover-boy? Certified child molester WOP WOP WOP WOP WOP
