Is it time to REDEFINE PEDOPHILES?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wow, since when did the definition of Pedophile include only active (or previously active) Sex Offenders? I guess we should just call all men rapists?

Pedophilia IS NOT about an action, it's about being sexual attracted to prepubescent children and that's where it ends. Modern society has misused the word to define a group of people who sexually abuse child which couldn't be more wrong.

First, just because someone has the attraction to prepubescent children that doesn't mean they will act on it. I personally know a few adult men who have the attraction but will never act on it. I have a great deal of respect for them.

Second, just because someone has sexually abused a child that doesn't make them a pedophile. I won't go into great depth here but most Child Sex Offenders are not pedophiles. The children are victims of convenience not first preference.

The reality is not that we need to "redefine pedophile" but that people need to stop misusing the word.

Yeah, but Pedophile has a negative connotation with its definition. It's considered a "perversion" which isn't exactly a fair label to something that is a normal attraction to those individuals. Instead is the definition saying a "Sexual Desire towards members of the same sex...." like homosexuality does, its definition says "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object."

So it's not exactly a fair word based on its actual definition.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow, since when did the definition of Pedophile include only active (or previously active) Sex Offenders? I guess we should just call all men rapists?

Pedophilia IS NOT about an action, it's about being sexual attracted to prepubescent children and that's where it ends. Modern society has misused the word to define a group of people who sexually abuse child which couldn't be more wrong.

First, just because someone has the attraction to prepubescent children that doesn't mean they will act on it. I personally know a few adult men who have the attraction but will never act on it. I have a great deal of respect for them.

Second, just because someone has sexually abused a child that doesn't make them a pedophile. I won't go into great depth here but most Child Sex Offenders are not pedophiles. The children are victims of convenience not first preference.

The reality is not that we need to "redefine pedophile" but that people need to stop misusing the word.

The issue is larger than the terms of reference that are used to describe it

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah, but Pedophile has a negative connotation with its definition. It's considered a "perversion" which isn't exactly a fair label to something that is a normal attraction to those individuals. Instead is the definition saying a "Sexual Desire towards members of the same sex...." like homosexuality does, its definition says "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object."

So it's not exactly a fair word based on its actual definition.

Sexual relationships between adults and children are not supported by our society in any level whatsoever. It must be extremely difficult for people who feel that way but who don't act upon the desires, however I see it as a question of when not if people act upon their desires. I doubt that it is possible for anyone to be truly celibate.

[nane1104 146]

If it's all about "action" versus "attration", then please define where the action starts!? When they physically touch a child? Go to playgrounds to look at children? Go on the internet to look at kids?

Where do you draw the line?

Pedophiles often admit to looking but not touching- that is okay then? Not to mention that "looking" (no action???) most likely isn't enough after a while and they start to think about what they could do and sooner or later act out on their thoughts and fantasies.

Just because there have been Pedophiles all throughout history, more or less tolerated by society, doesn't make it better for the victims who became prey of one of these people.

[Dan and Judy 614]

. I won't go into great depth here

If I only had a quarter for every time the priest said that

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Sexual relationships between adults and children are not supported by our society in any level whatsoever. It must be extremely difficult for people who feel that way but who don't act upon the desires, however I see it as a question of when not if people act upon their desires. I doubt that it is possible for anyone to be truly celibate.

Never mind that I disagree about the impossibility of anyone remaining truly celibate, why do you assume that a Pedophile can only achieve sexual gratification with a child?

Pedophiles "Primary" sexual attraction is to prepubescent children. Emotionally & intellectually they are just like other adults and seek companionship that satisfies needs other than sex. If their adult partner has physical traits that are similar to a child (slight build, small breast size, shaves/waxes pubic region) then it can make them more comfortable with the sexual aspect of their relationship but most pedophiles don't need and adult partner who is built like a 10 year old boy/girl to have a satisfying sex life.

For most Pedophiles there range of arousal doesn't exclude adults it simply includes children.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If it's all about "action" versus "attration", then please define where the action starts!? When they physically touch a child? Go to playgrounds to look at children? Go on the internet to look at kids?

Where do you draw the line?

Pedophiles often admit to looking but not touching- that is okay then? Not to mention that "looking" (no action???) most likely isn't enough after a while and they start to think about what they could do and sooner or later act out on their thoughts and fantasies.

Just because there have been Pedophiles all throughout history, more or less tolerated by society, doesn't make it better for the victims who became prey of one of these people.

The question is, what is society willing to give to protect both parts of society. Those who are born with this feeling and those who might be potention victims. At the end of the day, you have to protect both.

They often take adult models and use software to age them down for people who are attracted to really young boys and girls. A lot of people are against that because they feel it's 'encouraging' something, but you have to ask at the same time, wouldn't you rather someone be happy in the privacy of their own home with some images, rather than going out and staring at your kids in the park? You cause more of a danger to young children by creating a scenario in which there is not 'outlet' for that sexual frustration. I say give them everything in the world that possibly keeps them from acting on a real child. Give them images, videos, child-like dolls, etc. Whatever it takes to keep a certain sector of soceity at least satiated, so the liklihood of actually interacting with a child in that manner is smaller.

Trying to control is though, like the Christians try and control homosexuality with drugs, camps, etc. is non-realistic. Just as it's unrealistic to give someone a scarlet letter who has never committed a crime in their life.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There are a lot of "if's" there, Bob. I honestly don't know what "most pedophiles" need, but their sexual preferences aren't something that society allows for. They can't be.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Trying to control is though, like the Christians try and control homosexuality with drugs, camps, etc. is non-realistic. Just as it's unrealistic to give someone a scarlet letter who has never committed a crime in their life.

The real issue here is that because it's stigmatized they have to live in hiding, being told that they are shameful and evil. At the end of the day that doesn't make anyone safe and in fact it makes everyone less safe.

[Zero Sum 305]

This is another one of those "duh" articles.

Of course I've had this debate with a few 'special' members of this board as well who are offended at the idea that being attracted to young children is just as normal as homosexuality.

Hate to break it to you folks, it is.

Well, sure its offensive according to modern views of what constitutes acceptable behavior; but since you describe the behavior as 'normal' unto some un-described mechanism of human nature, could you elaborate what your opinion is on this instead of driving by your self-declared doctorate in human behavior?

Could it be biological?

Could it be pathological?

Could it be something primed?

Could it be something acquired?

I'm amazed to see that people still directly respond to Paul. Really, amazing.

Some of us can't help it sadly. Of course, some more than others, with different effect.

and you all understand nothing about the psychology behind it all.

Get off your damn moral high horse for a moment.

If you'd read the article and pay attention, we aren't even talking about 'offenders' here. We are talking about individuals who have that attraction but choose not to act on them. So be offended all you want, these people are guilty of nothing more than their attractions.

Sorry folks. You can like it or not, but just as homosexuality is not a choice, wanting pre-pubescent children is not a choice either. Just as wanting pubescent isn't a choice either. The only 'choice' is the actions you take.

Wants and desires are not something we control.

As I said, we are not talking about action. We are talking about attraction. Two different things.

Ahh, thanks for the explanation. I didn't read a few posts after your initial comment.

Could you elaborate more on that apparent organic predilection then? Obviously it would affect the psychology in such a way that you'd have a causal relationship.

You have a little bit of a point.

But, being homosexual is harmless and not a disease.

Grown men wanting to prey on 8 year old boys is dangerous and is a disturbing mental illness. It has more similarities (in attraction) to a serial killer/rapist than a homosexual.

Indeed. Given the moral structure of the current modern society, whomever partakes in this sort of activity is doing so in conflict with what society has obviously failed to instill in the adult.

fixed.

Dangerous? possibly. Disturbing? in modern society, yes.

That does not quantify it as a mental illness.

Do you have any fetishes? Something that turns you on more than anything else? Stop and think about that a second.

What we want and desire are not something we can control.

The number of people out there who have these attractions is a lot larger than society wants to admit. Just as people refused to admit for the longest time (and still are having a hard time coming to grips with), how many people are homosexual.

Society's moral code dictates how one can and cannot act, with good reason. However that does not mean just because someone has a different type of attraction than what you are accustomed to, that they have a mental illness.

But would you elaborate more on the organic mechanism underlying this sort of behavior? If there's nothing wrong with the brain itself, then no, it wouldn't be an illness. Is this the case?

I would think very few unusual sexual impulses are comparable to others.

And by the way, pedophiles are not the only ones who think children are sexual beings and should be encouraged to develop and express this.

Indeed, Danno. This is why slippery slope arguments always fail when comparing homosexual marriage to becoming permissive to other kinds of tolerated legal arrangements based on what gets put in somewhere on the human body.

[nane1104 146]

The question is, what is society willing to give to protect both parts of society. Those who are born with this feeling and those who might be potention victims. At the end of the day, you have to protect both.

They often take adult models and use software to age them down for people who are attracted to really young boys and girls. A lot of people are against that because they feel it's 'encouraging' something, but you have to ask at the same time, wouldn't you rather someone be happy in the privacy of their own home with some images, rather than going out and staring at your kids in the park? You cause more of a danger to young children by creating a scenario in which there is not 'outlet' for that sexual frustration. I say give them everything in the world that possibly keeps them from acting on a real child. Give them images, videos, child-like dolls, etc. Whatever it takes to keep a certain sector of soceity at least satiated, so the liklihood of actually interacting with a child in that manner is smaller.

Trying to control is though, like the Christians try and control homosexuality with drugs, camps, etc. is non-realistic. Just as it's unrealistic to give someone a scarlet letter who has never committed a crime in their life.

If that would work, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately you don't seem to take into account that those altered images might not be enough aanymore at some point. You can almost compare it to a grug addict who will have to increase his dosages or go to stronger drugs to satisfy the addiction.

For a Pedophile that can mean looking at those altered pictures at some point will lead to looking at pictures of children, if that's not enough, they will go out and look at children. Once that doesn't do it anymore.................

If all Pedophiles would be able to control their desires like you mention or want to believe, nobody would give two shits about them- but that's not the reality.

[Zero Sum 305]

Yeah, but Pedophile has a negative connotation with its definition. It's considered a "perversion" which isn't exactly a fair label to something that is a normal attraction to those individuals. Instead is the definition saying a "Sexual Desire towards members of the same sex...." like homosexuality does, its definition says "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object."

So it's not exactly a fair word based on its actual definition.

You still haven't, to this point, elaborated on this 'normal attraction.' There must be something biologically specific to pedofiles that isn't characteristic of a pathology for it to be considered normal.

[Zero Sum 305]

Sexual relationships between adults and children are not supported by our society in any level whatsoever. It must be extremely difficult for people who feel that way but who don't act upon the desires, however I see it as a question of when not if people act upon their desires. I doubt that it is possible for anyone to be truly celibate.

I haven't seen much focus here on the victims of these heinous acts: the children victimized.

While some may argue that there is a degree of opportunism involved, as we see with some blurry relationships between 13 year olds and 20 year olds... the idea that an 8 year old is being opportunistically permissive of a 54 year old's advances is something I'd say quite different.

[Zero Sum 305]

Never mind that I disagree about the impossibility of anyone remaining truly celibate, why do you assume that a Pedophile can only achieve sexual gratification with a child?

Pedophiles "Primary" sexual attraction is to prepubescent children. Emotionally & intellectually they are just like other adults and seek companionship that satisfies needs other than sex. If their adult partner has physical traits that are similar to a child (slight build, small breast size, shaves/waxes pubic region) then it can make them more comfortable with the sexual aspect of their relationship but most pedophiles don't need and adult partner who is built like a 10 year old boy/girl to have a satisfying sex life.

For most Pedophiles there range of arousal doesn't exclude adults it simply includes children.

I think the question I put to Paul would be well asked of you then. Could you elaborate on the likely brain biology that underlies this inclusive behavior of certain adults when being attracted to children? In your opinion what determines this?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The real issue here is that because it's stigmatized they have to live in hiding, being told that they are shameful and evil. At the end of the day that doesn't make anyone safe and in fact it makes everyone less safe.

Bob, how can society legitimise pedophilia? It's one thing to not label individuals (by which I mean things like the various "is a sex offender living in your neighbourhood?" websites) but it's another thing entirely to endorse it as an acceptable sexual preference.