Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"just a pedophile"

A phrase I never thought I'd see.




A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, whether on not he/she acts on that desire in any way.

A child molester is someone who actually engages in inappropriate sexual activity with a child.

A child molester may or may not be a pedophile, for what it's worth (one may molest a child for reasons other than sexual attraction - even when you look at rape of adults, in many/most cases sexual attraction is not the primary motivation of the rapist[0]).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_for_rape


Someone who is homosexual isn't any more inclined to molest or rape someone of their own sex than a pedophile is to molest or rape a child.

More on topic about censoring important information. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I feel like I've seen images where the thumbnail was retained from a previous version. Even at 32x32 there might be some way to expand it and gather some kind of information from its pixelated form even after the actual image was censored.


"Someone who is homosexual isn't any more inclined to molest or rape someone of their own sex than a pedophile is to molest or rape a child."

I'm sure you meant something about the proclivity to commit rape or molestation, but all this statement does is say there is a positive correlation between the two groups (and no citation or explanation of reasoning either).

Your statement would still be true if both groups had a large increase in probability of rape or molestation, vs the non-homosexual and/or non-pedophile.


Your pedophile / homosexual comparison seems to imply there's such a thing as consensual sex with a child??

A pedophile is much more likely to molest a child, because that's the only way their desires can be realized in the physical world. A homosexual could, I dunno, go have consensual gay sex? That's why people find this comparison offensive.


I think the distinction is between what a pedophile finds themselves drawn to and what they do. And, I might add, there are many ways for people to find gratification without actually having sex, or in fact ethically needing the consent of anyone. Also, pedophiles are absolutely comparable to homosexuals—both are individuals classified for their sexuality, regardless of how they express it or wish to be classified.

(To clarify, I absolutely to not condone any interactions whatsoever to do with pedophilia... but come on, people, let's not be blind here to the existence of people with full self control, ethical behavior, and private thoughts and desires.)


> To clarify, I absolutely to not condone any interactions whatsoever to do with pedophilia... but come on, people, let's not be blind here to the existence of people with full self control, ethical behavior, and private thoughts and desires.

Completely agree. Sad to think that there are people out there that have done nothing wrong, and cannot control their desires, and yet people (like many in this thread) would judge them without a second thought.

Lets hope none of them commit adultery by simply desiring another person. /s


> Your pedophile / homosexual comparison seems to imply there's such a thing as consensual sex with a child??

Western law currently says no. But allowed sexual behavior (especially in this area) has historically been all over the map. One or two generations ago we were castrating homosexuals for their unnatural bevahior. Pederasty was an important part of Greek culture. Research the age of consent around the world and prepare for surprises.

I'll agree that a pedophile is much more likely to molest child, though. We define it that way.


Given that most thumbnails are done with resampling to scale, I imagine this attack would work similarly there as well.


We were using ImageMagick to resize images down to a smaller size. Turns out that, unless passed certain flags, ImageMagick would retain all metadata.

A few times, we'd end up with a 32x32 pixel image that was 20 megabytes in size - because that metadata included the original image.


What is the relation between homosexuals and pedophiles?


They are both people with no relation to whether or not they will molest someone else they are attracted to. You could also just throw heterosexuals in there to be safe. I suppose if you wanted to avoid comparing a sexual orientation to something that isn't you could maybe use something like being attracted to people who wear glasses. People who find other people who wear glasses attractive has no relation to whether or not they will molest them.


I'm with you 100% on the whole issue, and believe that pedophilia isn't any less ethical than homosexuality is, but I do feel that a sexually repressed person who cannot release their sexual urges is more likely to rape someone than a person who regularly has sex/relationships/etc, regardless of sexual preference.

Maybe not very much more likely, but it's definitely not less, and probably not equal.


> but I do feel that a sexually repressed person who cannot release their sexual urges is more likely to rape someone than a person who regularly has sex/relationships/etc, regardless of sexual preference.

Agreed. Sadly, society (like many in this thread) would rather create an environment where people like that cannot get help. Rather, they must stay repressed, stay isolated, and further the likely hood of uncontrollable behavior.

Rehabilitation is something most don't want to discuss these days. God help those who lose the genetic lottery.


Please do not treat pedophilia like it is a sexual orientation. Also, please do not try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia — you clearly don't know what you're talking about and the underlying implication is quite offensive.


I don't think OP was trying to offend. It was a purely logical assertion that sexual attraction does not correlate with rape/molestation. You could have put any form of sexual preference there and it wouldn't change the meaning.

I think the point here was that [and I could be wrong] we shouldn't assume pedophile == child molester because pedophilia is currently classified as a mental disorder but more importantly, as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children which does not in any way indicate a tendency to cause harm. For all you know, in 60 years, we might start seeing moves to accept pedophilia as a socially acceptable sexual orientation as we did we homosexuality. Let's not forget the dark history of homosexuality's acceptance into society too soon as traces still linger even today

Again, purely logical statement and not intended to insult.


In what sense is pedophilia not a sexual orientation?

It's generally deemed a socially unacceptable orientation, just as homosexuality was in many societies until only recently, but it's an orientation nonetheless. It's a useful metaphor with a lot of parallels to be drawn.

In any case, the parent comment was only using the metaphor to illustrate an important point; that being sexually attracted to a certain group of people, and actually molesting members of that group, are two wholly separate things.

Referring to someone convicted of molesting children using the term for someone who is merely sexually attracted to children is a significant misrepresentation.


No. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder or paraphilia; not a sexual orientation. This is thoroughly discussed and documented. The APA has changed any such notation in the DSM.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-...


This is just splitting hairs over definitions.

The APA are not the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not a sexual orientation, and if anything, the fact DSM-5 referred to it as a sexual orientation lends credence to the view that it is as such.

Sexual orientations and psychiatric disorders are not mutually exclusive.

Bear in mind for much of history society treated homosexuality akin to a psychiatric disorder (Edit: It was in fact classified as a mental illness in both the first and second editions of the DSM, released in 1952 and 1968, so let's not treat the DSM as gospel)


I'm going to reply here singly, rather than to each of the three that replied to my post above.

Please be clear that the article described the description of pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the DSM was an error - not a mind-changing. There was no "credence" lent to it being viewed as such; it was mistake and was admitted as such, and corrected. It was intended to read "sexual interest", not sexual orientation.

“In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a ‘paraphilia,’ not a ‘sexual orientation.’ This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual,” the organization said. The error appeared on page 698, said a spokeswoman.

The fluidity of the APA DSM is not something that is worth arguing; we can all agree that definitions change and have changed. I'm operating under the current set of definitions and primarily wanted to make the point that likening paraphilic disorders as "sexual orientations" is typically hurtful for reasons that probably don't require explaining.


You realize these documents are not carved in stone like holy scriptures, right? DSM is in its 5th edition already. Homosexuality used to be treated (or still is in other cultures) as paraphilia or worse. Who knows, maybe in 50 years from now pedophilia will follow suit.


To quote from your link:

> According to the DSM-5, pedophilia “refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality,” NeonTommy wrote.

Basically, the term that they use in the DSM is "pedophilic disorder" (changed from "Pedophilia"), which is a classified disorder.


It never fails: You can always find some pedantic creepy internet weirdo to start tut-tutting "now, now, let's think of the poor pedophiles..."


So you'd rather judge them without action? How sad a situation this is.

Rather than creating an environment where someone with desires (that they cannot control, mind you) must hide and isolate themselves, rather than Getting help!

You realize that you're only making pedophiles more likely to harm children right? They need help, not damnation.


Pedophilia in itself isn't a crime.

Well, unless we've started prosecuting thought-crime. I could have missed that update.


Prosecution of downloading pedo material is as close as it gets to thought-crime.


Similar to how downloading some else's bank account into yours is practically thought-crime?

"But officer, I was only shuffling bits!" isn't a defense.


I don't see how robbing someones bank account is comparable to downloading outlawed pornography.


Hoarding illegal material is a crime (and not a thought crime.) We call it 'recel' in French. Not sure what is the legal term in English, 'fencing' is argotic, right?


Possessing illegal bits is kind of a basic example of thought crime.


Right, that's what I'm saying about the bank account. If child pornography really is just bits, then the same should go for your bank account. When you "illegally" increase your bank account it's just bits, right?

Or how about classified information. Is it thought crime to have classified information you aren't allowed to have? "But it's only bits, how can bits be illegal?"




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: