1y ago

We should stop calling child molesters "pedophiles"

Basically what it says on the tin. Having read though some of the materials on the issue, I am baffled by how recklessly the word is used, given the consequences of such usage.

Pedophiles are the people with sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It doesn't matter whether they do or don't act on that attraction; in fact, many don't. It is a sexual interest/mental condition that cannot be reliably changed.

Child molesters, on the other hand, are not necessarily pedophiles - in fact, 50 to 75% of child molesters do not have pedophilic interest.

Both facts can be sourced from the respective Wikipedia article and more info can be found in respective research.

Why does this matter?

Because the current use of the word reinforces stigma around pedophilia and makes it less likely for people with pedophilic disorder to reach out for help for the fear they would be outed and treated the same as actual child abusers.

This, in turn, makes those in a vulnerable position more likely to cross the line and get into the category of child abusers instead of coming for help. Also, it heavily affects people who did nothing to deserve such treatment.

What should we do?

We should leave the word "pedophile" to the context in which it belongs, which is the mental health and sexuality spheres, and avoid using the term to describe sexual offenders against minors. At the very least, one would most likely be wrong. At most, one would participate in the cycle of child abuse.

104 comments

Agreed. This is a pet peeve of mine. Pedophilia is not a crime. Child molestation is a crime. It makes it hard for pedophiles to get the treatment they need and we lose focus on the real danger, people who actually touch children.
- Until someone commits a crime, they should not be harmed or punished.
  
  Pedophilia is not a sexuality.
  It's a sexual preference, which you don't have much of a say over. However, the difference is that people don't act on it, mostly, otherwise they'd then be an abuser/rapist.
  You have the same barn door attitude as my simpleton father.
  
  Let's kill the downies too, while we're at it. They are a drag on society as well. Oh, and also anyone with an IQ below 90. It stands to reason those people do far more harm to society overall than a few pedophiles ever could. ^\s ^for ^those ^who ^need ^it
  
  Not all pedophiles consume child abuse material; some are okay with fantasies, some others resort to fictional materials (loli/shota drawings, and, recently, AI art generated with adult-based training data)
  
  OP layed out above why with a shitty attitude like yours, you create a more harmful environment for children.
  
  I'm actually okay with lynching...
  No
  
  Anyone arguing for their humane treatment may as well be a pedophile themself.
  Just because your empathy ends here doesn't mean other non-pedo's are as cruel as you are. And let us not forget that it is entirely possible to be innocent and be attracted to minors at the same time, meaning it would be okay, at least according to you, to lynch innocent people.
This is a prime example of what the community is about.
With that said, advocating violence (read: not justice) will not be tolerated. Vigilante mindsets will not be allowed.
Really getting tired of removing comments calling for death. Advocate for strict justice, not death itself.
- Thank you for your efforts!
If one assumes that merely by being a pedophile someone is danger to kids then by the same logic being a heterosexual is a danger to the opposite sex.
Most people in jail for raping children are "normal" rapists with no specific interest towards kids. They're just an easy target. Being able to rape someone requires a special kind of twisted mind. Just being sexually interested about it alone in general isn't enough. Many people have sexual interests they're not going to pursue for moral reasons. Pedophiles can and usually do have morals as well.
- I think your conclusion here is a sound one, but I don't know if the logic works. Because for a heterosexual teleiophile, there are multiple legitimate avenues for outlet. Paedophiles do not have any legitimate outlets that don't cause harm.
  
  What is that argument? Do you need an "outlet" or you'll eventually become a rapist? I think many people spend years/decades without sex and they don't suddenly become unstable.
  
  Fair point!
  Though, as many pedophiles are also into adults (i.e. are non-exclusive), I may assume they do not live a celibate life. Some do, though.
  I also wonder if priests being common offenders is driven by celibacy and unavailability of any sexual outlet.
  
  That's true which is why I argue that demonizing AI CP and child size sex dolls just makes the problem worse. Yeah it's fucked up but the alternative is even more so.
- Uhhh... have you heard the bear vs man argument going around? Many women believe being alone with any man is dangerous - that "logic" is already well established.
  
  Wowza. You really missed the point of the man vs bear discourse.
  
  Oh no, here we go again!
My unpopular opinion is that pedophilia is a paraphilia and not necessarily a mental condition, even though some cases do manifest that way. But maybe I'm wrong. Please, go easy with the lynching.
- True!
  Pedophilia by itself is not considered to be a disorder starting with DSM-V/ICD-11.
  However, if pedophilic thoughts cause distress or may lead to dangerous behaviors, it is seen as a pedophilic disorder, which remains in both medical classifications.
  Should have made this point clear.
  
  Should have made this point clear
  Oh, not at all! I just felt like stirring up some controversy 😈 But thanks for clarifying anyway!
Wow, this one got me. Top tier unpopular opinion.
You lay out pretty good points, mostly in terms of specificity.
And then you continue pointing out that there's likely no choice for a pedophile, and that they're not abusers until they abuse someone. And hey, I can get on board with that.
But man, if you really think that there shouldn't be a severe social stigma attached to pedophilia, then I really gotta disagree with you there. This should be something a person should only feel comfortable talking about with their doctor, close loved ones, or anonymously like you're doing here. There should be no stigma attached to getting help, but this isn't fun facts about yourself you should share with others.
If this is you, get help. And if you are getting help, I am honestly glad for you. But please don't ever think that anyone outside of professionals, loved ones, and other pedophiles is ever going to not have a visceral reaction to the revelation that you are attracted to kids. It is an appropriate defense mechanism meant to attempt to separate potential victims from their potential abusers.
- I'm not one, but yes, pedophiles should absolutely reach out for help if possible and if they need any. I'mma play it open - I had a close person of mine opening up to me, and I did my best to research before proceeding.
  I think it should be treated like "wow, okay. Hope you know that abusing children is bad, and if so, I'm here with you".
  It shouldn't be a fun fact, but it shouldn't be "you sicko pervert let me shoot you" kind of situation.
- I think you contradict yourself here. You say there should be a stigma about having these thoughts but then say people should get help and not be stigmatized for it.
  If there is a stigmatization about it, then that is going to keep people from bringing it up and getting help due to fear of being attacked either physically, financially, or emotionally.
Thank you for this post. I think you've expressed your thoughts very well.
An additional benefit to a well thought out and nuanced post like this is being able to block people who don't think things through and wouldn't be able to grasp nuance even if it was slathered in Gorilla Glue.
- Unfortunately, more of such people come over to Lemmy, participating in every and all controversies, and it truly is helpful when they highlight themselves.
  Thanks for your words!
Good truly unpopular opinion, and mostly good discussion on the points made. That said, I think pretty much all the points that were going to be made have been made. Locking thread.
If child molesters don't have sexual interests. Why do they molest children? If they don't have pedophilic interests why would they be more likely to cross the line? Sorry I'm just a bit confused.
- Power. Not a bad question
  
  Rape is depressingly common during and after the invasion of a territory. You know what victims are overwhelmingly targeted? NOT the most vulnerable (children, elderly, prisoners, mentally ill), it's women. These sick freaks may get off on the power of the act, but don't pretend they don't have a preference. I think to truly stop this from happening we can't be reductive, we need to follow the science wherever it leads...
- Most commonly severe sexual deprivation multiplied by antisocial tendencies and the ease of abusing a minor vs an adult.
  Also in violent cases, similarly to adult rape, a sense of power over the victim.
  On the point of "more likely" - pedophiles are still more likely to be child abusers; it's 1-5% of male population responsible for 25-50% of child abuse. Statistics is fun.
  
  You're probably right about that point. The incel victimhood mindset is probably a primary factor. The word incel is often used pejoratively, but it is short for "involuntarily celibate", meaning they want sex but there are no willing partners able to consent... But that won't stop them if they get a good opportunity... Yikes.
- Because the current use of the word reinforces stigma around pedophilia and makes it less likely for people with pedophilic disorder to reach out for help for the fear they would be outed and treated the same as actual child abusers.
  OP is saying that by referring to child molesters as pedophiles, instead of child molesters, we risk scaring non-abusing pedophiles from seeking treatment. There are treatment programs for pedophilia, but social stigma can cause them to not be popular with the masses and lose funding.
  Edit: I brain farted a bit and had a fib in there. Removed it.
  
  As an OP, not exactly with your first point. As I explicitly stated, 50 to 75% of child abusers are, in fact, not pedophiles. They do not experience primary sexual interest in children, and would much rather have sex with an adult, all other things being equal.
  Second is true.
  
  They do have the interest, but the difference is that they have acted on it. All apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples kind of thing.
  ...did you read the whole post? He literally says that most child molesters aren't pedophiles.
  Child molesters, on the other hand, are not necessarily pedophiles - in fact, 50 to 75% of child molesters do not have pedophilic interest.
- Fuck off with that hebephelia and ephebophilia isn't pedophila bullshit.
  A lot of people commenting here need to be on a watch list.
- Power and sadism. A general desire to inflict horror and extreme pain.
This bit scratches the surface and is a giggle. 😁
word explanation
When I think about how many famous, powerful people have been outed as child molesters, it definitely seems to me that pedophilia is something that can develop within people. I don't think that pedophiles tend to become famous, nor do I think that the trend among powerful people is reflected in the general population.
From the wikipedia article
There are motives for child sexual abuse that are unrelated to pedophilia, such as stress, marital problems, the unavailability of an adult partner, general anti-social tendencies, high sex drive or alcohol use.
This seems crazy to me and I don't think any of it explains why so many powerful people actively seek to molest children. Treating pedophilia as a condition or as a quirk in one's sexuality seems dangerous to me. You can like petite people, you can do schoolgirl roleplay or whatever you want with a consenting adult. Don't even think about kids. That should be an immediate red light in anyone's brain.
- But, it is an actual mental condition/mental illness/mental disorder. Just like what op said, there are, in fact, a lot of people that are attracted to kids that know it's wrong and don't act on those thoughts. They can not control having those thoughts in the same way that I can see a beautiful woman and am immediately attracted to them.
- In some peoples' brains it's just not. Attraction works in a way that doesn't ask you for your stance.
  And among wealthy and powerful, there are plenty of sociopaths who would abuse a child without being pedophilic per se. Also, if you check the age of their victims, this is most commonly post-puberty minors, and attraction to those is highly common in an adult population.
  There is currently no evidence that pedophilia can be developed, except for the fact that there's an elevated percentage of pedophiles among people who have survived child sexual abuse as minors themselves.
Because the current use of the word reinforces stigma around pedophilia and makes it less likely for people with pedophilic disorder to reach out for help for the fear they would be outed and treated the same as actual child abusers.
This is a semantic argument. Words change all the time; it's OK. It's especially common for clinical words to move into the pubic domain where they loose their clinical usefulness and even become pejorative. We just need a new word to describe the thing you're talking about.
There is no power in the spoken syllables or the written configuration of the word pedophile. Any other word will do just as well. Trying to prevent language shift is wrestling the tide.
- There is an umbrella term for all people attracted to all ages of minors: minor-attracted person (MAP). This term was often used not only as a more clinically correct one, but also as a less stigmatized word.
  As a result, this word got stigmatized too, because the underlying issue has not been solved.
- The problem lies in why that term was re-appropriated in the first place.
  It's easier to just ignore the distinction entirely and throw everyone under the same bus. It promotes hysteria and makes people easier to control. Easier to tell everyone "won't someone please think of the children" instead of actually putting thought into the problem and seeking actual resolution.
  Sure, we could find a new term... but until we solve the underlying reason for it's mis-appropriation in the first place, it's never going to stick.
- The very point I'm making is that stigma, in fact, does not help prevent acts of abuse; quite to the contrary.
  You cannot identify every pedophile and kill them, nor will that help because this trait randomly emerges in the population again and again.
  But you can force them into isolation, which will force them to select unhealthy coping mechanisms, including actual offenses against minors, instead of going for help to prevent their behaviors.
  Professional, judgement-free help is the only thing that is actually known to help. And we won't get them there without accepting those who chose to never hurt anyone.
- You cool with gay conversion camps too?
  
  No, conversion doesn't work, we should just shoot them all, obviously /s
  
  Nothing wrong with being gay plenty wrong with wanting to fuck kids.
Certified lover-boy? Certified child molester WOP WOP WOP WOP WOP
For many, pedophiles, or whatever other minor-philes are akin to Nazis or something else universally reviled.
There's no perceptive redemption or discussion.
For many, including me, that's fine.
Consent is mandatory, anything outside it is a done discussion. I understand the discussion on precrime, as related to non offending attraction, but for many the mere thoughts earn the end of tolerance.
As such, policing language to be tolerant of that group is a non starter.
Edit Do note I never called for lynchings or purges or minority report arrests. The law should cover all equally.
Seems the sort of thing a Pedo would say. Rapists should be neutered, especially anyone who raped a kid..
I don't believe in calling them map or whatever stupid term we are using to enable them.
- I feel like you didn't even read what was said.
- Full disclosure: not a pedo, but know one.
  The entire point of my argument is that pedophile doesn't have to abuse children; many don't, and we have to support them to make sure isolation and stigma don't lead to dangerous behavior.
  There is therapy available for such people to not ever be dangers to kids, and that's the correct way to direct them.
Nope. Pedophiles are child molesters. Something you want to tell us?
- Child molesters are child molesters.
  
  So are pedophiles, and hebephiles.
Pedophiles are bad people. Regardless of if they have 'offended' or not. I'm okay with chemically, or physically castrating them to help remove those urges, or putting them to death. I don't care about their feelings or if they're mixed up with child molesters.
- This is a very basic view of the world.
- Attraction is not a choice. If you believe it is, tell me when you chose to be attracted to whatever floats your boat.
  
  What I'm attracted to includes consent.
  Being attracted to something that can't consent is not alike other attractions.
  Edit downvotes from people who think consent is optional.
- Pedophiles are people who randomly happen to have an interest in children. They can't do much about it; they can remove the sexual element (but not romantic one) by chemical castration, but most of them also experience attraction to adults, which will also get cut off.
  In any case, this will feed into frustration, which may have other negative consequences.
  Killing all pedophiles is not only inhumane, but also unfeasible, since you cannot separate them from others. And this won't remove the trait of pedophilia from the population; for all we know, the nature of pedophilia is not purely genetic.
  
  It's also a self-defeating strategy. If it means paedophiles can't come forward to their therapist for fear of facing severe consequences, they...won't come forward. And won't get treatment to help them deal without causing harm. And will thus end up more likely to cause harm.

104 comments