Pedophiles are not Child Molesters

[theprestige]

Well, some of them are, obviously. But that's a choice. Pedophilia is a condition.

And it's a pretty horrible condition. We say that abstinence-only sex education is a mistake, because people just don't work that way. We say that requiring priests to be celibate causes more problems than it solves, because people just don't work that way.

But pedophiles? Pedophiles are screwed. They are never going to experience a fundamental aspect of the human condition in a normal, healthy way. And unlike sadists, masochists, and other fetishists, pedophiles will never be able to indulge their kink, or satisfy some of their sexual urges in a safe and healthy way.

Celibacy works for some people. Some people choose it, or accept it. But for pedophiles it's not a choice. They have sexual urges they are never allowed to satisfy. And that's pretty horrible.

---

For this reason, I think it is very important that we be clear in our language, and clear about what we are and are not condemning. A person suffering from the condition of pedophilia, and struggling with the voluntary celibacy that is their only legitimate option, is not helped by being condemned as a child molester. They do not benefit from being hated and shunned. Society does not benefit by hating and shunning them.

There's no good to be found, in lumping together pedophiles, child molesters, and statutory rapists in our speech. There's no advantage to letting them all in in for the same condemnation.

---

Especially on a forum like this one. But being accurate about pedophilia isn't just about being techinically correct. It's also about being morally right. Therefore I support the practice of calling out imprecision on this topic wherever it comes up.

Pedophiles are not child molesters. Well, some of them are, but you know what I mean. Go forth, and sin no more.

 

[DragonLady]

I spent most of my adult life arguing for gay marriage.

A huge number of people screamed "if we allow gays to come out of the closet, be treated like everyone else, marry each other and raise children, the next step will be pedophiles wanting the same".

"No", said I, "there's no reason to assume we'll slide down that slippery slope. No reason to believe we can't take a single reasonable step without falling off the edge of sanity".

Yet. Here. We. Are. Obviously, I was very very wrong. I do want to apologize to all of those who correctly called it, and saw this happening.

They have sexual urges they are never allowed to satisfy. And that's pretty horrible.

Right. So much worse for them than for a tiny child to experience the equivalent of a flashlight up their nose.

Cry me rivers.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That went well!

 

[Belz...]

Thanks, theprestige. I think that summarises it nicely.

I would add, however, that lumping them together with molesters may drive them away from treatment, into more dark corners, and may in fact harm children in the end. Using language more responsibly therefore would help keep children more safe.

 

[Belz...]

I spent most of my adult life arguing for gay marriage.

A huge number of people screamed "if we allow gays to come out of the closet, be treated like everyone else, marry each other and raise children, the next step will be pedophiles wanting the same".

"No", said I, "there's no reason to assume we'll slide down that slippery slope. No reason to believe we can't take a single reasonable step without falling off the edge of sanity".

Yet. Here. We. Are. Obviously, I was very very wrong. I do want to apologize to all of those who correctly called it, and saw this happening.



Right. So much worse for them than for a tiny child to experience the equivalent of a flashlight up their nose.

Cry me rivers.

And here we have the perfect example for why this thread is needed.

What part of "pedophiles are not child molesters" did you not understand?

 

[DragonLady]

"pedophiles are not child molesters"

The part where I'm supposed to be sympathetic because they aren't able to victimize small children to get what they want.

I would say to them what my Mother said to me:

Suck it up, Buttercup, the world doesn't revolve around you.

Through history there have been plenty of people who have to sublimate their sexuality for various reasons. The moral taboo of harming children trumps all, IMO, and no one should ever feel they have to turn a blind eye to a person who would act on such urges in the name of love or human kindness or empathy or sympathy. Yet, I see threads like this as the opening salvos in a bid to accomplish exactly that.

 

[3point14]

Right. So much worse for them than for a tiny child to experience the equivalent of a flashlight up their nose.

This is why we can't have the conversation. Some people go straight to emotion, bypassing logic.


Take another look at what you're railing against. Does it contain a value judgment? Or a course of action? Or legislation? No, it does not. It's a blank statement that a life in which one cannot fulfill one's sexual urges is horrible. Which is true.

There's no suggestion in that which you find so offensive that the poster thinks that children should be made available to those that find them attractive or that they should not be prosecuted, just an acknowledgement that it sucks to be mentally ill.


This is why we can't have conversations about it because you and others like you view talking about it and condoning it as the exact same thing.

 

[theprestige]

That went well!

It did, actually, in the sense that I fully expected something like DragonLady's response. Not from her specifically, but I figured it was bound to happen pretty quick.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Part of being human is mastering desires. It must truly suck to possess a desire that's simultaneously strong and impermissible. But still the task is the same: control one's behavior despite desire to pursue it. We can pity those who are overcome by desire without suggesting we should allow the behavior.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The part where I'm supposed to be sympathetic because they aren't able to victimize small children to get what they want.

Oh what utter goddamn across the board nonsense. That's like saying everyone with sexual desires is a rapist that just hasn't been able to get a victim yet.

 

[DragonLady]

This is why we can't have the conversation. Some people go straight to emotion, bypassing logic.


Take another look at what you're railing against. Does it contain a value judgment? Or a course of action? Or legislation? No, it does not. It's a blank statement that a life in which one cannot fulfill one's sexual urges is horrible. Which is true.
There's no suggestion in that which you find so offensive that the poster thinks that children should be made available to those that find them attractive or that they should not be prosecuted, just an acknowledgement that it sucks to be mentally ill.


This is why we can't have conversations about it because you and others like you view talking about it and condoning it as the exact same thing.

lol

Almost word-for-word the same arguments I was putting forth 30 years ago in defense of gays.

Re the highlighted: do you have any idea what kind of damages children suffer when they've been raped by adults?

The OP admitted this is the first steps of a road to just that:

We say that abstinence-only sex education is a mistake, because people just don't work that way.

If the argument is abstinence only doesn't work for "people"; the argument is also abstinence only doesn't work for pedophiles.



.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Re the highlighted: do you have any idea what kind of damages children suffer when they've been raped by adults?

You are reaching ponderingturtle levels of responding to things nobody is saying.

 

[plague311]

Am I understanding this correctly when saying that we to call someone who hasn't molested a child, a pedophile; while properly referring to someone who has molested a child as a child molester?

 

[DragonLady]

Part of being human is mastering desires. It must truly suck to possess a desire that's simultaneously strong and impermissible. But still the task is the same: control one's behavior despite desire to pursue it. We can pity those who are overcome by desire without suggesting we should allow the behavior.

I suppose so...but then what is the point of a thread like this?

People in prison, people sent to convents, people in slavery, people in the space station...people in all kinds of places and positions have been forced to keep it to themselves.

They survive. One of the best things about sexual sublimation is knowing you're not gonna die of it, and there are healthy outlets available to nearly all. For those few under 24 hour surveillance or lacking arms or whatever, I do have sympathy. But for those looking sideways at children, I do not.

 

[theprestige]

Yet, I see threads like this as the opening salvos in a bid to accomplish exactly that.

You are wrong. Horrribly, nastily, unthinkingly wrong.

You're taking me to task for things I've never said, and do not believe. This is unfair to me, and to you.

Please take the time to re-read my post, not in terms of your prejudices and what you imagine I secretly mean, but in terms of what I've actually said.

---

There is a distinction between suffering from a condition and acting on an urge. Desiring sex with children is not the same as seeking or having sex with children. I think it's an important distinction. I think that as a society we should be diligent about maintaining it.

We say that it's unrealistic to tell a 14 year old boy to keep it in his pants until marriage. Unrealistic, and probably unhealthy.

But what do we tell a 14 year old boy who's coming to grips not just with all the sexual and emotional turmoil of puberty, but with the added realization that the only thing that actually excites him is little children? We can't tell him, "go out there and have some safe sex fun!" like we do to all his peers. We shouldn't tell him, "you're a monstrous child molester, and nobody can ever know your secret, and you must spend the rest of your life - starting right now - living as an asexual being with no sex urges at all ever." But that's exactly the message society seems to send. Imprecision in our language and our condemnation is a big part of that. I think that we here, at least, can do better.

DragonLady, I'm calling on you to do better.

 

[Belz...]

The part where I'm supposed to be sympathetic because they aren't able to victimize small children to get what they want.

Leaving aside that this isn't any sort of reasoning, how about the part where driving the non-offenders to indulge their deviance in darkness rather than seeking treatment leads to putting real children in danger?

Are you willing to throw children under the bus because using an incorrect word to vilify their potential predators feels good?

 

[DragonLady]

You are reaching ponderingturtle levels of responding to things nobody is saying.

I'll take that as "No, Ma'am, I really do not."

 

[3point14]

lol

Almost word-for-word the same arguments I was putting forth 30 years ago in defense of gays.

Can you tell me back, in your own words, what The Prestige is trying to say in his post. What do you infer from it? Do you think that's the same as what he was trying to imply?

Re the highlighted: do you have any idea what kind of damages children suffer when they've been raped by adults?

I'm intrigued as to why you think this is relevant in the context of this discussion? You're the only one that's raised it, nobody else has mentioned it. Certainly nobody has advocated allowing any sort of sexual contact involving a child. At no point has that happened. Yet you speak as if someone has.

Your rage blinds you. You need to get over it and read what people are actually saying, not what you think they're saying.

The OP admitted this is the first steps of a road to just that:

Yes. This too is a fact. It doesn't advocate anything. Yet you react as if it does. Why is that? Why are you reacting to notions that just haven't been proposed. Nobody here but you is talking about child rape. We're talking about ill people.

If the argument is abstinence only doesn't work for "people"; the argument is also abstinence only doesn't work for pedophiles.

Can you evidence this? Do you have any proof?

 

[Belz...]

Part of being human is mastering desires. It must truly suck to possess a desire that's simultaneously strong and impermissible. But still the task is the same: control one's behavior despite desire to pursue it. We can pity those who are overcome by desire without suggesting we should allow the behavior.

That's all true, but I'm of the opinion that helping people mastering their desires is better than treating them like monsters, pretty much ensuring that they won't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Am I understanding this correctly when saying that we to call someone who hasn't molested a child, a pedophile; while properly referring to someone who has molested a child as a child molester?

Sorta. Pedophilia is an attraction to children (pedophilia for prepubescent, ephilophile for post-pubescent if we want to get really technical) and says nothing in and off itself as to any actions taken.

It's not an either/or term per se.