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.
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!
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.
This bit scratches the surface and is a giggle. 😁
Nope. Pedophiles are child molesters. Something you want to tell us?
Child molesters are child molesters.
So are pedophiles, and hebephiles.
Except when they aren’t. What don’t you understand about this?
Obviously the core concept.
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.
Wow, this one got me. Top tier unpopular opinion.
You lay out pretty good points, mostly in terms of specificity.
And then you continue pointing out that there’s likely no choice for a pedophile, and that they’re not abusers until they abuse someone. And hey, I can get on board with that.
But man, if you really think that there shouldn’t be a severe social stigma attached to pedophilia, then I really gotta disagree with you there. This should be something a person should only feel comfortable talking about with their doctor, close loved ones, or anonymously like you’re doing here. There should be no stigma attached to getting help, but this isn’t fun facts about yourself you should share with others.
If this is you, get help. And if you are getting help, I am honestly glad for you. But please don’t ever think that anyone outside of professionals, loved ones, and other pedophiles is ever going to not have a visceral reaction to the revelation that you are attracted to kids. It is an appropriate defense mechanism meant to attempt to separate potential victims from their potential abusers.
I’m not one, but yes, pedophiles should absolutely reach out for help if possible and if they need any. I’mma play it open - I had a close person of mine opening up to me, and I did my best to research before proceeding.
I think it should be treated like “wow, okay. Hope you know that abusing children is bad, and if so, I’m here with you”.
It shouldn’t be a fun fact, but it shouldn’t be “you sicko pervert let me shoot you” kind of situation.
I think you contradict yourself here. You say there should be a stigma about having these thoughts but then say people should get help and not be stigmatized for it.
If there is a stigmatization about it, then that is going to keep people from bringing it up and getting help due to fear of being attacked either physically, financially, or emotionally.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh no, here we go again!
Wowza. You really missed the point of the man vs bear discourse.
Thank you for this post. I think you’ve expressed your thoughts very well.
An additional benefit to a well thought out and nuanced post like this is being able to block people who don’t think things through and wouldn’t be able to grasp nuance even if it was slathered in Gorilla Glue.
Unfortunately, more of such people come over to Lemmy, participating in every and all controversies, and it truly is helpful when they highlight themselves.
Thanks for your words!
Seems the sort of thing a Pedo would say. Rapists should be neutered, especially anyone who raped a kid…
I don’t believe in calling them map or whatever stupid term we are using to enable them.
I feel like you didn’t even read what was said.
Full disclosure: not a pedo, but know one.
The entire point of my argument is that pedophile doesn’t have to abuse children; many don’t, and we have to support them to make sure isolation and stigma don’t lead to dangerous behavior.
There is therapy available for such people to not ever be dangers to kids, and that’s the correct way to direct them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a very basic view of the world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
