6 ms·

I'm a pedophile, but not a monster

43 points by zabramow 11y ago

jmorphy88 11y ago
Is this part two of "How Completely Messed Up Practices Become Normal"? (Answer: Salon)
- sajitmk 11y ago
  Hey, I'm a bigot if I don't accept abortion & same-sex marriage.
- witty_username 11y ago
  Well, pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality. It may be messed up to have that orientation but it's not the person's fault as sexual orientation is impossible to change.
  - Crito 11y ago
    Whether or not it is "their fault" that they were born a monster is of no consequence. The question of fault is completely irrelevant. A red herring.
    - rincebrain 11y ago
      Actions, not thoughts, make a monster. 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?
      - pluma 11y ago
        Actually it's perfectly normal to have "unwanted thoughts" at varying frequencies. Although some people may not admit to it for various reasons, everybody experiences them sometimes (e.g. imagining harming a baby, which you rationally would never even consider). 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).
      - Crito 11y ago
        > Actions, not thoughts, make a monster. 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.
        aninhumer 11y ago
        >I will not wait for somebody to be harmed before I condemn an admitted pedophile. And by doing so, you ensure that all paedophiles are non-admitted ones. Imagine how much safer that makes your children.
- V-2 11y ago
  He (and his group) oppose these practices, their agenda seems to be that (some?) paedophiles are capable of self-control and refrain from following their urges, which are wrong. Not that these urges should be acceptable.
mwhuang2 11y ago
Interesting perspective. I've always thought of pedophilia as being just another orientation, not necessarily tied to sexual abuse. That'd be like assuming a straight male has perverted tendencies towards all women. Homosexuality was perhaps also treated with these kinds of unfair assumptions before becoming accepted by mainstream society. People have a narrow range of perceived normalcy, anything beyond which is seen as deviant, but that range is evolving constantly.
- x1798DE 11y ago
  I always feel really bad for pedophiles, but one issue with comparing attitudes towards homosexuality and attitudes towards pedophilia is that the solution to the homosexuality issue was to stop trying to "cure" it and let homosexuals indulge their desires. I find it highly unlikely that that will ever be the desirable solution to the pedophilia problem. 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.
  - mwhuang2 11y ago
    Right, the key difference is that children are below the age of consent. I was just comparing how both were given unfair negative stereotypes for having an orientation different from the norm.
everyone 11y ago
The contemporary prevailing attitude towards pedophiles reminds me of the 17th century attitude towards witches. Namely, irrational; Jumping to extreme conclusions based on no evidence, data, or rational model. 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.
- V-2 11y ago
  There was this really good episode of Brass Eye, "Paedogeddon", lampooning media's portrayal of the threat (the tone they use, the sensationalism, lack of critical thinking etc.). It's hilarious - well if you like British humour - and available on YouTube. Chris Morris got under some heavy criticism for it, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye#Response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye#Response
  - everyone 11y ago
    Yeah brass eye is great! (I'm from Ireland so I've seen all that stuff)
pluma 11y ago
Pedophilia is primarily a sexual disposition, just like any other sexual orientation or fetish. It only becomes a problem if someone acts on it. 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. [0]: https://www.kein-taeter-werden.de/ https://www.kein-taeter-werden.de/
- DanBC 11y ago
  The UK has some "befriending circles" where people befriend offenders. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031625.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031625.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8611279.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8611279.stm
voidz 11y ago
I'm going to do my best and respond to this essay as civil as I can while arguing from the other side of the fence. I've not read the entire story because it became too graphic and repulsive for me. I genuinely tried and am not about to go all verbally violent here, but I did stop reading when what I read made me too nauseous. I gave it a try. And I don't think the answer to the expression of thoughts and feelings alone should be violent: no person should be punished for having thoughts and feelings, even if they're like this. As long as a person doesn't act on them, they should be left free. It's just that asking for acceptance, and for me to be cool with the stuff being said, is too much to ask. 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.
oxplot 11y ago
I find it interesting that Wikipedia classifies [1] pedophilia as a "psychiatric disorder". Would this make homosexuality or other sexual orientations a disorder? Otherwise, what's the difference? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
- V-2 11y ago
  I'm not a doctor, but I think paedophiles have difficulties in controlling their sex drive, and the actions resulting from it. Plus, there's the question of consent. Do children give consent? Can they even?
  - zzalpha 11y ago
    Why would pedophiles have any more difficulty controlling sex drive than anyone else? That, to me, is precisely the kind of irrational BS the author is trying to counteract. 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.
    - mchahn 11y ago
      > Now imagine you could never ethically satisfy that drive. Ever. Would it be ethical to have sex with a virtual reality child?
      - hidroto 11y ago
        ethics and morals aside, there are some laws that prohibit fictional depictions of CP combine that with the ambiguity of ages of characters in fiction and you could have something like this http://cbldf.org/2011/06/cbldf-forms-coalition-to-defend-american-comics-reader-facing-criminal-charges-in-canada/ http://cbldf.org/2011/06/cbldf-forms-coalition-to-defend-ame...

43 points by zabramow 11y ago

jmorphy88 11y ago

Is this part two of "How Completely Messed Up Practices Become Normal"? (Answer: Salon)

sajitmk 11y ago
Hey, I'm a bigot if I don't accept abortion & same-sex marriage.
witty_username 11y ago
Well, pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality. It may be messed up to have that orientation but it's not the person's fault as sexual orientation is impossible to change.
- Crito 11y ago
  Whether or not it is "their fault" that they were born a monster is of no consequence. The question of fault is completely irrelevant. A red herring.
  - rincebrain 11y ago
    Actions, not thoughts, make a monster. 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?
    - pluma 11y ago
      Actually it's perfectly normal to have "unwanted thoughts" at varying frequencies. Although some people may not admit to it for various reasons, everybody experiences them sometimes (e.g. imagining harming a baby, which you rationally would never even consider). 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).
    - Crito 11y ago
      > Actions, not thoughts, make a monster. 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.
      - aninhumer 11y ago
        >I will not wait for somebody to be harmed before I condemn an admitted pedophile. And by doing so, you ensure that all paedophiles are non-admitted ones. Imagine how much safer that makes your children.
V-2 11y ago
He (and his group) oppose these practices, their agenda seems to be that (some?) paedophiles are capable of self-control and refrain from following their urges, which are wrong. Not that these urges should be acceptable.

mwhuang2 11y ago

Interesting perspective. I've always thought of pedophilia as being just another orientation, not necessarily tied to sexual abuse. That'd be like assuming a straight male has perverted tendencies towards all women. Homosexuality was perhaps also treated with these kinds of unfair assumptions before becoming accepted by mainstream society. People have a narrow range of perceived normalcy, anything beyond which is seen as deviant, but that range is evolving constantly.

x1798DE 11y ago
I always feel really bad for pedophiles, but one issue with comparing attitudes towards homosexuality and attitudes towards pedophilia is that the solution to the homosexuality issue was to stop trying to "cure" it and let homosexuals indulge their desires. I find it highly unlikely that that will ever be the desirable solution to the pedophilia problem. 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.
- mwhuang2 11y ago
  Right, the key difference is that children are below the age of consent. I was just comparing how both were given unfair negative stereotypes for having an orientation different from the norm.

everyone 11y ago

The contemporary prevailing attitude towards pedophiles reminds me of the 17th century attitude towards witches. Namely, irrational; Jumping to extreme conclusions based on no evidence, data, or rational model. 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.

V-2 11y ago
There was this really good episode of Brass Eye, "Paedogeddon", lampooning media's portrayal of the threat (the tone they use, the sensationalism, lack of critical thinking etc.). It's hilarious - well if you like British humour - and available on YouTube. Chris Morris got under some heavy criticism for it, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye#Response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye#Response
- everyone 11y ago
  Yeah brass eye is great! (I'm from Ireland so I've seen all that stuff)

pluma 11y ago

Pedophilia is primarily a sexual disposition, just like any other sexual orientation or fetish. It only becomes a problem if someone acts on it. 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. [0]: https://www.kein-taeter-werden.de/ https://www.kein-taeter-werden.de/

DanBC 11y ago
The UK has some "befriending circles" where people befriend offenders. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031625.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031625.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8611279.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8611279.stm

voidz 11y ago

I'm going to do my best and respond to this essay as civil as I can while arguing from the other side of the fence. I've not read the entire story because it became too graphic and repulsive for me. I genuinely tried and am not about to go all verbally violent here, but I did stop reading when what I read made me too nauseous. I gave it a try. And I don't think the answer to the expression of thoughts and feelings alone should be violent: no person should be punished for having thoughts and feelings, even if they're like this. As long as a person doesn't act on them, they should be left free. It's just that asking for acceptance, and for me to be cool with the stuff being said, is too much to ask. 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.

oxplot 11y ago

I find it interesting that Wikipedia classifies [1] pedophilia as a "psychiatric disorder". Would this make homosexuality or other sexual orientations a disorder? Otherwise, what's the difference? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

V-2 11y ago
I'm not a doctor, but I think paedophiles have difficulties in controlling their sex drive, and the actions resulting from it. Plus, there's the question of consent. Do children give consent? Can they even?
- zzalpha 11y ago
  Why would pedophiles have any more difficulty controlling sex drive than anyone else? That, to me, is precisely the kind of irrational BS the author is trying to counteract. 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.
  - mchahn 11y ago
    > Now imagine you could never ethically satisfy that drive. Ever. Would it be ethical to have sex with a virtual reality child?
    - hidroto 11y ago
      ethics and morals aside, there are some laws that prohibit fictional depictions of CP combine that with the ambiguity of ages of characters in fiction and you could have something like this http://cbldf.org/2011/06/cbldf-forms-coalition-to-defend-american-comics-reader-facing-criminal-charges-in-canada/ http://cbldf.org/2011/06/cbldf-forms-coalition-to-defend-ame...