I'm a pedophile, but not a monster
salon.com
salon.com
Maybe a rational policy would be even harsher towards them, I dont know, though I doubt it. I would certainly bet however that our current attitude and policy in society is not evidence based or well considered.
Chris Morris got under some heavy criticism for it, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye#Response
All the statistics I've seen indicate that child abuse is less or more orthogonal to pedophilia (just as rape is less or more orthogonal to sexual orientation -- male rapists of men don't necessarily identify as homo- or bisexual).
The only problem with pedophilia is that there is no way to legally satisfy a pedophile's urges. Having sex with children is obviously out of the question (though some people try to argue that children could conceivably somehow consent to it and that would make it okay -- the fallaciousness of which I hopefully don't have to point out) and pornography has its own share of problems.
I think it's a good idea for pedophiles to seek therapy as this kind of sexual frustration (which is different from regular voluntary abstinence in that there's literally no viable alternative) could result in mental health problems, which ultimately could be harmful.
But it would help a great deal if we stopped calling child abusers "pedophiles". Pedophilia isn't defined by child abuse, pedophilia is defined by sexual attraction to children. As icky as the idea might be to "normal people", pedophilia would barely even qualify as a thought crime in itself.
In Germany there's an organisation[0] helping pedophiles not to endanger others (by providing therapy and counselling) that regularly runs ads on TV. I think this is far more productive than just trying to ignore them and label them all as child molesters even if they don't pose any harm.
Plus, there's the question of consent. Do children give consent? Can they even?
How many straight or gay adults have raped, cheated, had one night stands, to satisfy a sexual need? Countless. The sex drive is enormously powerful.
Now imagine you could never ethically satisfy that drive. Ever. While meanwhile being constantly wracked by shame and guilt every time it asserts itself.
This isn't an excuse to abuse, obviously. But its absurd to assume pedophiles have a stronger or weaker sex drive than anyone else, or that they're uniquely incapable of restraining themselves from abusing others to satisfy it.
Would it be ethical to have sex with a virtual reality child?
You might say that homosexuality is when these ingredients get flipped, or mixed in some ratio (bisexuality).
There is quite a difference to being sexually attracted to, let's say ceiling fans, children or whatever. I think it's unfair when people put homosexuality in the same bucket as these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology#T...
Sex with a child is illegal (broadly speaking). Being sexually attracted to a child could be a source of distress for a person or lead to damaging behaviors (e.g. sex with a child).
People could have a good handle on their attraction, like the person in the article purports, but from the perspective of people writing the DSM, sexual attraction to a child may be a disorder when it leads to undue distress or disorderly behavior. When what is seen as disorderly changes, the diagnosis might change, but I see this one as sticking around.
Consider how difficult it would be for a homosexual person to just act straight for their entire life, even if they can openly acknowledge their true selves.
Admittedly I do wonder why the essayist is making himself sound so threatening to parents especially by talking about this in such great length and so graphically? Non-paedos have similar feelings to mine of being repulsed, or worse and do get violent from this stuff. At the same time other paedos already feel the same way I would wager so in that sense it's preaching to the choir. And what the author wrote is all about him and him alone, I'd say that's the root problem of the entire subject being talked about. To most of us it's not just about him. It's about children being able to grow up free from (sexual) infringement. The child's safety is what's paramount!
The problem I have with these essays and these types of paedophiles (i.e. those who say "I won't act on it, but I still have these feelings anyway") is that they argue for no one but themselves; they make it about them, want to be understood, portray themselves as victims first chance they get (QED in the article), and following that, they make the argument to "society as a whole."
They want to be accepted, for their sexuality to become regarded as normal. But it's not. It's not even normal to talk on and on about yourself and, at the same time, talk about others like they are objects in your own fantasies.
Asking to be accepted while at the same time wanting to be able to be sexually pleased by, and/or to sexually please, children, well as I see it this is psychopathy: they lack empathy, they lack the ability to understand why parents (and non-paedophiles too for that matter) are so protective to children.
To the pleading paedos it's all about them, ad infinitum, and "if we just gave them a chance they could prove that they are harmless." No you're not. Just knowing that you are fantasizing about my kid is doing a form of harm. Although no harm that should be acted upon: I think this line of reasoning does fully fall under freedom of speech / expression. (I am not from the USA, but we have a similar "freedom of expressing opinion" law here)
So, to quote something from the essay that already disgusted me was this: "I’ve never touched a child sexually in my life and never will, nor do I use child pornography." So what? Are you saying that this making me sick makes me a monster? What are you trying to say? That I shouldn't worry?
You don't perceive yourself as a monster, and as long as you don't act on your feelings I might even agree that the word "monster" is too strong. But that does not change the fact that even as much as passively being sexually attracted to children makes you a threat. Being vocal about it activates parental instincts.
On one hand I think: if letting it out prevents you from acting on those feelings: good. On the other hand it makes me wonder if this implies that you will become a risk if you keep those thoughts to yourself. So, how well can you be trusted? Almost fully? That doesn't do it for me. Almost fully means not at all. If you talk about this online you probably have friends with similar feelings. Can they be trusted? Can a group of pedos be trusted? It's just not safe at all, slippery slope, risks I'm not willing to take, not even close.
So it does not matter if you have crossed the line or not. To me it's not even about you. To you it's about you. To me it's about keeping children away from the risks. So I am also aware that it's not your job to protect my children, it's my job to protect them from people who are a threat.
Normal parents simply will do everything they can (within bounds) to protect their kids from harm. It's a constant struggle, internally, for a parent to decide when to let a (young) child figure out something for him/herself and when not to: it's not good to be overprotective. Two years old and playing with a spoon? I'd say maybe, but only supervised and perhaps not even that. Playing with a knife? Absolutely not. And I'm not arguing to "get rid of all paedos" either. I won't blame you for how you feel as long as you don't act on it. In the same way, what I ask in return, is that you don't blame me for how I feel, as long as I don't attack you while you did not act out of bounds. Telling me that you do fantasize about my kid is crossing the line, but even in that case, words should not be the reason for me to get violent. I will however stay the hell away from you and not let you close to my kid or any other kid for that matter.
So: the pedo argues for himself and I argue for me and children who can't defend themselves yet. Non-paedos I'd say are usually hard wired to detect, stay clear of, and get rid of dangers to children. That's not a logical argument, it's a maternal/paternal instinct. It's already a struggle between these instincts and reasonably understand that the kid will someday probably accept just as much from his/her parents as we accepted from ours. But for most parents it's just too hard to capture this into words.
Paedophilia / hebephilia / ephebophilia is threatening to parents and children. People with such sexuality might not act dangerous. But to the parent the entire premise is not about the paedophile but about the parent and child. The maternal/paternal instinct is very strong and we will protect our children at all costs. No amount of reasoning can or should change that.
I'm really not sure what your problem with the article being "all about them" is? It is literally an article about them. What else would you expect?
All they want is for you to treat them like a human being, instead of dismissing any kind of social interaction with them the instant you hear they're a paedophile.
Of course you want to protect your children, but how much of a threat is a known paedophile really? Just don't leave your children alone with them, and there's pretty much no danger.
Far more dangerous to your children are all the unknown paedophiles, who don't tell you because they're afraid of being socially ostracised.
The reason for me to reply at all is because I wanted to capture these things civilly and rationally, even though I am appalled. He said his piece, I said mine, in an attempt to find an alternative to what another commenter called, I paraphrase: medieval and irrational.
What exactly is psychopathic about their argument? You say they "don't understand" why parents are afraid, but of course they do. They're just asking you to reconsider whether that fear is rational, and pointing out the harm it does to them.
>the maternal / paternal instinct is as much of "a thing that can't be changed"
The instinct is just to protect children from danger. The recognition of danger is higher level, so it is something that can be changed.
I think you're getting downvoted because your prose looks like like noise and emotion. The framing doesn't look like it's aimed for productivity, as opposed to individual emotional expression.
People could agree to a cool-headed discussion about cool-headed policy of keeping pedophiles away from children. One may be able to gather consensus for such a discussion. You could also have a cool-headed discussion about keeping alcoholics away from bars, and you could even gather consensus among alcoholics and non-alcoholics.
But you are the wrong person to represent any such argument. You sound like noise and emotion. I hope you don't respond with saying, "Of course I respond with emotion! My disgust is just as natural! It's my parental instinct!"
I also think you totally miss the point of what this person is saying, and instead your overcharged emotional reaction justifies pedophiles hiding rather than being open. That's a shame.
It's a shame because the pedophiles who expose themselves do so with almost no expected gain, but with a tremendous amount of risk and cost. It's not like the emotions of pedophiles become any less problematic if they stay secretive. But by being open, they are more likely to seek instruments of self-regulation, such as therapy.
Not all parents lose sight of the fact that their family exists within an ecology of families and individuals. It's not like I'm going to put children in front of pedophiles, no more than I am going to tempt an alcoholic by bringing them to a bar. But I'm not going to allow myself to be overwhelmed by disgust either, so much that I would say that even self-disclosure for a pedophile is disgusting.
I can explain to my children my policy and tell them that they'll understand and be able to make their own decisions when they are adults, and I can do so without letting disgust spill all over the place. I'd rather my children understand my reasoning than simply see an unregulated display of disgust.
The question of fault is completely irrelevant. A red herring.
Plenty of people have thoughts of harming another human being at some point, relatively few of them ever act on it. Does that mean all of them should be treated as monsters?
The difference is that sane people don't act on these thoughts and notice them as unwanted (and seek out psychiatric help if they impact their quality of life).
I would imagine it's not any different for pedophiles, except they additionally suffer from an inherently dysfunctional sex life with all the psychological consequences that can have (the one thing that turns them on is the thing they try not to think about).
I reject that absolutely.
I would not want a pedophile in my neighborhood near my children. They are monsters, no matter how they acted thus far
I will not wait for somebody to be harmed before I condemn an admitted pedophile. There is no sense in allowing somebody to be harmed first. It is immoral to wait for somebody to be harmed. In waiting for somebody to be harmed, you are essentially offering their victim as a human sacrifice to appease your personal ethical philosophy.
And by doing so, you ensure that all paedophiles are non-admitted ones. Imagine how much safer that makes your children.