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.
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.
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.
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!).
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.
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.
Oh no, here we go again!