debate: what makes a pedo a pedo

[Kingswood]

ok kind of weird to spring this up out of nowhere but was having a debate with some friends about michael jackson being a pedo. even tho he was never found guilty officially in court, evidence is pretty damning that the dude was likely a pedo

my friend was arguing that he wasnt a pedo because it was the parents fault for bringing kids to sleep over at his house, knowing that dude is a weirdo.

his argument: he wasnt actively going out seeking children to molest, they were brought to him and if he did touch them inappropriately its the fault of the parents for allowing it

now that argument is pretty retarded

and then we got into, whether a pedophile can be classified a pedophile if he never molested any kids. i said yes, of course. someone who masturbates to kiddy porn is a pedophile regardless of whether he did it in real life

but then he said... "well i think of killing people many times throughout my life, does that make me a murderer even though i never actually followed through"

and i didnt have a rebuttal to that.

discuss, lol

[Bucks5]

A Pedo is someone who has a sexual desire for children, it makes no difference whether they follow through and act on it. A Molester is someone who has touched kids so you aren't a molester until you go through with it.

[Kingswood]

So people who have desires for killing, they cant be tried for being a murderer right? can they be tried for anything?? unless they had some concrete plans laid out and shit i guess.

i understand the difference between pedophile and molestor. that wasnt the question

pedophiles can be punished even though they never acted on their desires.

[HAL]

They could, but it might be dangerous. Perhaps. What happened to it? Give me an example of the question pedophiles can be punished they never acted on their desires.

[stui magpie]

[Kingswood]

yeh simple answer thats what i was looking for,

thanks stui.

*phones friend*

[David]

The official terms, if you like (although the media unfortunately confuses them regularly) are paedophile and pederast. The former suggests someone who is simply sexually attracted to children (there is no implication of criminal activity at all), whereas the latter, I believe, indicates actually doing something about it (and thus is the correct word to use in child sex offender cases).

I think a distinction exists for a very good reason. Think about it - how many paedophiles actually end up molesting children? I don't think you'd have to be a rocket scientist to suggest, say, a 1 in 10 figure as a conservative estimate, for all kinds of psychological reasons (inhibition complexes, shame, or simply good old-fashioned compassion for other people). The percentage who view child pornography on the internet, I would wager, would be considerably higher - and this is where I have a huge problem with current child pornography legislation.

While child pornography is illegal for a very good reason (i.e. the exploitation that is involved in its production), the legislation targeted at the viewer seems, in my opinion, to be punishing paedophiles simply for being paedophiles. That, to me, is wrong-headed and inhuman.

There doesn't seem to be any definitive understanding yet of what makes a paedophile a paedophile. Some suggest that it is largely a result of previously experienced abuse, but there are some critics of this theory, and when one takes into account current understandings of other sexualities, it is possible that the reasons are far more complex. If, we argue, people are born gay, why is it so challenging to argue that some people might simply be born with a sexual attraction to children? To be honest, I'm a far bigger believer in environmental as opposed to genetic theories (although both play their part), and I suspect that paedophilia, like homosexuality or heterosexuality, may be more based on experiences and development. Nevertheless, there is one thing that is hard to dispute: nobody 'chooses' to be a paedophile.

One can certainly choose to be a pederast, but we have to understand this in the context of the overwhelming sexual urges that the person may feel. Of course child molestation and production of child pornography should be a criminal offence and rigorously prosecuted, I'm not arguing otherwise - but the manner in which society treats paedophiles and even pederasts (or, as the media likes to call them 'monsters'/'animals'), I would argue, is appalling.

Paedophiles who manage to keep their urges in check should not be subjected to Minority Report style arrests (i.e. catch the criminal before he commits a crime) simply because of viewing child pornography. Subscribing to and thus funding such services are a more problematic issue, but I would argue that this issue requires a far more complex approach than a simple 'get the pedos' policy. Perhaps I would even go so far as to promote the production of 'fake' child pornography (i.e. animated or computer-generated images) so that people with this sexuality/disorder are able to live reasonably normal lives without resorting to abusing children, in conjunction with more rigorous prosecution of those who produce child pornography as opposed to those who view it. Regardless of whether or not such a radical proposal would ever be undertaken, there certainly needs to be more counselling and less stigmatisation of paedophiles in our society - how much more openness as opposed to vilification, I have to ask, would prevent paedophiles being forced to act on their impulses in absence of any kind of support or counselling or understanding of how to deal with their own condition? It would also be a useful tool to help the (I would suggest, overwhelming majority of) paedophiles who have not and would never act on their impulses.

In short, there needs to be a far more humanist paradigm applied to paedophile issues, and it seems that we are a long way from that at the moment.

[Kingswood]

that was a fantastic read David, thank you.

[Simone]

David, perhaps when you have children you will know why paedophiles/pederasts are considered for the most part evil, cunning and cruel. No child ever consents to be molested by these bastards. It takes a cold heart and premediation to embark on molesting children and it all starts for the most part on people downloading and viewing child pornography. Either try to cure them of which that is debateable that these sorts of humans can be cured of something that is so debased or throw away the key or get rid of them altogether. Waste of taxpayers money. Sorry but how is animated child pornography going to cure them of anything? You are feeding them something extra and a lot like video games, sure it's not real but the violence and sexual content is still there.

How would you know no one chooses to be a paedophile? There are groups on the internet who swap stories, children even and porn. Do these people sound like they are having a moment? They know what they are doing and here I am going to generalise, thoroughly enjoying their preferred sexuality choice. To compare paedophilia with hetros and gay men and women is totally insulting.

[David]

Simone, one doesn't simply 'choose' to be sexually attracted. I can't simply decide to be sexually attracted to trees today because I feel like it.

Your final paragraph suggests that paedophiles have a ball being paedophiles. This is an extremely narrow-minded assertion. While I have no doubt that many of them revel in their sexuality (sex, as we know, is one of the most pleasurable aspects of human existence and the body sends huge reward signals for indulging in it), can you imagine the guilt and shame that many must feel, not to mention the overwhelming social vilification? How many people a year kill themselves because of this? Good luck finding statistics on that.

Your first paragraph, I'm afraid, is filled with emotive language: evil; cunning; cruel; bastards; cold heart - this is typical of the kind of rhetoric that is directed at paedophiles frequently, and psychology 101 would suggest that this is going to have a negative effect on the psyche (even, as I mentioned above, possibly leading to further criminal acts). You, like the rest of the society, wish to just lock them away and throw away the key, or equally negatively, put them away for 10 years and then release them back into society because some hack psychologist reckons they're 'cured'. Does this ever actually work?

My suggestion about artificially manufactured child porn is as part of a wider scheme for education both of and about paedophiles and thus enabling far more openness, and better treatment and counselling as a result. Vilification and hysteria make the situation far worse for everybody involved.

[magpietragic]

Sorry David, you have lost me on this one. Totally agree with Simone.

Children are NOT sex objects, no ifs, buts, or maybes. We should do everything possible to keep OUR kids safe. Anyone with sexual feelings towards children is a danger to children. Whether they choose to have those feelings is irrelevant. If they need gratification via animated videos they are simply feeding that need. Sorry, to me this issue is black and white, zero tolerence.

David if you have sexual feelings for a tree, who cares? Comparing trees to children. Get real!

[David]

My point was that sexual attraction is not arbitrarily chosen. I thought it was a pretty basic point, really. You either are sexually attracted to something or you aren't, and there's evidence that many paedophiles are only, or at least primarily, attracted to children.

If you read my posts again, you'll realise that my proposals are actually about keeping children safe as well. I don't think our current policies are particularly effective that way, frankly, and there are far more human and intelligent options open to us.

[Pied Piper]

I think you're on very dangerous ground here David. The animated video idea is appalling I think; I agree that that is feeding a need that should never be allowed gratification.

[pietillidie]

[Geez, the below gets tedious, but I don't have time to rework it].

I think David is only trying to be rational because in rationality comes answers, and he happens to be courageous enough to have a serious and honest go at all manner of issues.

Personally, I view the world strongly in terms of power relations, so I view enacted pedophilia (whatever the right term is - David, I think pederasty has a quite specific cultural meaning), as a very serious abuse of power relations. Remember, abuse of power is simply doing something to others to their detriment (and your gain) because you can, and that encompasses a whole range of situations. In our culture, someone who say violently abuses an Aborigine is clearly seen in a far better light than a child abuser, whereas in terms of power relations they are in fact equals. And in that case, those trotting about on Collins Street as if they own the world yet have just invested in mines which have poisoned entire villages in West Papua ought also be treated at best on a par with say traffickers of children. If we are truly honest and fair people, of course.

So simply being morally consistent should help reduce our righteous indignation. And if that's not enough, our knowledge of medicine should make us even more cautious; if people are born with an abusive disorder* (and remember, illnesses and disabilities are simply variations which damage quality of life as socially determined), it is in fact an equal abuse of power for us to treat such people as human garbage, no matter how "evil" their act. So perhaps both the pedophile and Collins Street killer both need psychiatric treatment for different disorders. That's the area David is exploring. And if this approach reduces the rate of abuse and suffering, wouldn't we all support it? Or indeed, aren't we morally compelled to support it?

Magpie tragic and simone, what if the non-medical approach has the prohibition effect of driving statistical psychiatric problems that will always exist underground where they cannot be treated? Contrary to good intentions, that might in fact make such an approach the best friend and facilitator of child abuse going around.

Moreover, we all have to ask ourselves if we have ever abused our power over others. Have we ever invested in or supported or worked for a company which has done so? Have we ever voted for a government which has done so? Do we have family or friends who are guilty as charged? Until we can be that fair and rational we are not serious about morality, we are simply participating in mob evil and scapegoating a minority with an abusive disorder for the ills of humanity.**

In answer to Kingswood, the terminology used is irrelevant; only acts matter. If we start making thought a crime, as your friend points out, we're all in serious trouble (and yes, I think the difference between murder and manslaughter/conspiracy is substantially arbitrary). And this works both ways; calling someone a term that puts them in a class of "evil, cunning and cruel" people, when they've never actually abused their power over children, would then itself be a serious crime against someone. And classifying someone who has a disorder the same way is even worse.

Ironically, if people with such disorders have not abused their power - even when having such a disorder facilitates them doing so - they ought to be considered of a superior level of morality. But of course we'd want to give them a helping hand before their disorder damages both others and themselves.

In regard to David's comparison of same sex-attraction with attraction to children, I don't think it's a good comparison, though as I say, David is just exploring ideas. We can of course say both are naturally-existing attractions. But the problem is "naturally existing" is neither a moral or medical argument, though I understand why the gay and lesbian community has used the biological argument to overcome such oppressive religious nonsense as the idea that homosexuality is "unnatural" and "corrupted". What makes homosexuality a valid human expression is that it is a beneficial variation of humanity, and most certainly not a harmful one (and therefore it is also a democratic one). In contrast, what makes a disease something that needs to be cured is the fact it's not a beneficial variation of humanity. And if I can tie those together in a syllogism, what therefore makes pedophilia a disorder rather than a valid human variation is the fact that it is clearly not a beneficial human variation as its only end is the destructive abuse of power.

*Note 1: Previously I used the words disabled/ill interchangeably, but on consideration that is likely to be offensive to both of those parties because they could easily say that their "negative" physical variation does not have as its goal a criminal or immoral result. So I have changed the term to "disorder" or "abusive disorder", on PPs advice to be more sensitive.

**Note 2: This is not meant to be dismissive, either. I realise the individual victim is thinking from the POV of their own often tragic and serious trauma, not humanity generally, whereas this argument look at the argument problem at a macro epidemiological level.

[Pied Piper]