
I'm a pedophile, but not a monster - zabramow
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/29/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster_2/
======
everyone
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
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
Yeah brass eye is great! (I'm from Ireland so I've seen all that stuff)

------
pluma
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
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)

------
oxplot
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
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
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
> Now imagine you could never ethically satisfy that drive. Ever.

Would it be ethical to have sex with a virtual reality child?

~~~
hidroto
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-
ame...](http://cbldf.org/2011/06/cbldf-forms-coalition-to-defend-american-
comics-reader-facing-criminal-charges-in-canada/)

------
mwhuang2
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
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
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.

------
voidz
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.

~~~
aninhumer
I think you're reading far more into this article than what he's actually
asking for.

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.

~~~
voidz
The writer's making a plea to be socially accepted. I'm explaining (a) why I
think this is unlikely to ever happen; (b) the psychopathical elements I think
exist in his argument; and (c) that the maternal / paternal instinct is as
much of "a thing that can't be changed" as sexuality.

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_.

~~~
aninhumer
>the psychopathical elements in the argument

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.

------
jmorphy88
Is this part two of "How Completely Messed Up Practices Become Normal"?
(Answer: Salon)

~~~
witty_username
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
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
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?

~~~
Crito
> 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
>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.

