Pedophiles Versus Child Molesters

I honestly never knew there was a difference. I always used the two terms interchangably simply because I never knew any better.

The problem is that sexual attractions are a primal drive. Sex is one of our basic needs, along with food and shelter. People will find an outlet. They may not act upon their attractions by molesting a child, but many use pornography. Consuming child pornography contributes to child molestation.

And they can be good people, but they are good people with a serious problem. One of my good friends was a pedophile. He was a GREAT person. He secretly used porn to keep his attractions under control. He tried to date women, but he was not attracted to them. Eventually, after 30 years of never having a satisfying sexual encounter, he coerced a child in his class (he was a substitute teacher) to undress and he took pictures. With a film camera. He had the film developed at Target, knowing full well he would be caught, because he didn't know how else to get help. He went to prison, got out, and disappeared. No idea what happened to him.

But I believe he was a good person. I worry about him, because I don't think sexual preference is something that can be eliminated or changed by therapy. Those who prefer children are pretty much screwed, because there will never be a healthy outlet for their sexual urges.

http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman

Kiota is right -- in the strict Latin meaning of the word. It's like aquaphilia = to like water, to like swimming / water skiing / diving / etc. Problems with that? Only chlorinated hair, perpetual goosebumps, prune skin, maybe :)

Kiota is wrong -- to the extent that "pedophilia " and "pedophile" have been criminalized by the American justice system as a behavior and as a description of a person --- male, female, animal, vegetable, mineral --- who acts on that behavior to coerce another person [usually a young child] into a boundary violation --- disrobing, and-or physical / sexual activity-- which is defined by law as being against that law.

Most people in society are neither lawyers nor legislators. [Which is probably a very good thing, btw, considering the track record of those worthies.] The misinterpretation comes in the popular belief that being a person who likes children is automatically a person who is going to sexually attack -- "molest" -- those children. Not true, but most people won't make that fine distinction, split hairs that carefully. So "pedophile" has become a synonym for "child sexual attacker". Exactly the witness of Poison Ivy.

As a former law enforcement officer, I find it ABSOLUTELY APPALLING that Ediblewoman is an apologist here, for a teacher who has been convicted of criminal sexual behavior with a minor and who has been incarcerated for that. Her reasoning is that he did it deliberately --- possibly ruining the life of his victim for a long time --- because he did not know of any other way to get help.

That is pure, unadulterated hogwash.

Mr. Challenged Teacher had only to go to one of thousands of sexual treatment providers practicing in this country and sign himself up for therapy BEFORE he "coerced" his victim. Just pick up the phone, walk in the door, lie down on the couch, cry like crazy, get it all out, whatever. This all could have been done discreetly and, although in many states both sexual therapists and rape crisis center workers are Mandated Reporters --- meaning their state REQUIRES them to turn over information they acquire about possible / probable crimes that have occurred but not been reported yet --- , Mister CT could have enjoyed enough confidentiality to have made some real progress in healing himself. To replace a 30-year career of child porn, magazines, film, whatever --- to replace that with a real live sexual attack on a real live defenseless child who trusted him as an authority figure --- is just astonishingly selfish and inconsiderate of everyone but himself and he is exactly the kind of person the laws are designed to punish in order to protect other defenseless children.

I'm also aware that ironies abound, in the way our criminal sexual laws are enforced against teachers. Take Mary Kay Letourneau, for example. I won't restate the facts here, it's what Google is for. She was 25 or so, her student was 14, they trysted, she got fired, charged, convicted, imprisoned. And their story had a very happy ending.

But they are the absolute exception.

The problem is that society tars and feathers perps with a very wide brush and very sticky tar. No wonder E-woman's friend "disappeared." Rightly or wrongly, society is perpetually disapproving of a convicted sexual attacker whether he or she is healed or not. Nobody wants them around at all. And though it may not be possible to implement a complete behavioral change in the mind and behaviors of someone undergoing therapy, at times enough behavioral controls can be adopted by a convicted attacker that he / she is no longer a danger to those with whom he / she comes into contact.

So, how do you tell the difference between a dangerous pedo and a safe one?

Well, um ... you don't. Ahead of time, that is. Guessing wrong is not worth it. Especially if it's your child up next.

Also, I don't agree that such are "pretty much screwed". They can get right out of America and go find another country whose cultural mores and legal strictures are much more congenial to child sexual activity than ours is.

"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon

"He made a choice on that day. He had a choice and he denied that choice to his victim."

Yes he did. An abominable choice. I never said otherwise.

"If you were giving his victim 1% of the concern you are giving him, we wouldn't be having this conversation."

Is it not possible to have concern for both parties? I think therapists who deal with sex offenders probably have some concern for their clients. It is natural to have concern for a person you once knew, to wonder what pushed them to become something unspeakable.

"You don't know whether he can be "cured" or not."

That's what I said.

"If he can't be "cured" or taught to control himself effectively, yes, of course he's going to add to his victim list."

I also said this.

"recidivist stats for this kind of crime....over two, three, five years.... They are pretty damn high."

This is why I said the above.

"the fact that you were led to think he was a "great person" for the few years you knew him just witnesses to the fact that he was able to con you just as easily as he was able to con his victim...and, actually, put on an act for all his class members, his boss, the superintendent , whoever hired him in the first place....."

It is an amazing skill that molesters have, and pedophiles who haven't molested, too. They get really good at hiding everything. It doesn't make me the bad guy for having a friendship with him prior to his offense.

http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman

I've thought about this kind of thing before, and it bothered me how this kind of thing is so often twisted by the American public. Like, if you're gay, you're expected to jump on the next person of the same sex with no regard for propriety or the actual attractiveness of said person. it's ridiculous. if a younger woman dates a much older man, she's a glod digger. if an older woman dates a much younger man, she's a cradle robber. it's like, can we just quit with all the labels, please? they're making me dizzy!

"A pedophile a post-adolescent who is attracted to pre-adolescents. For instance a 20-year-old who is attracted to girls or boys under the age of 12. There's also 'hebephiles', post-adolescents who are attracted to pre-adolescents (for instance a 30-year-old who is attracted to 15-year-olds) - they're usually grouped among pedophiles."

So.... what's the difference?

I think there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. Today's society considers them immoral and all of that other good stuff. It is just the time period that we are living in, I am sure that thousands of years ago things were different (Romans), and the majority of people think of pedophiles are immoral. So is there a thing we can do about it? no. That is just what people think, who decides what is moral? God? Government?. Certainly society does and if you are any different from the norm, then you are looked down upon. Nothing anyone can do about it.

...Of who to attack and defend.

"It is estimated that only 2-10% of child molesters meet the criteria for pedophilia."

Source? Are you including non-sexual abuse?
---
"So why are all pedophiles automatically labeled child molesters, and vice versa?"

Perhaps being overzealous to protect children is a bit more important to most people than proper nomenclature. The vast majority of both active and non-practicing pedophiles keep their desires secret, for very good reason. Those that are caught sexually abusing children are the only ones thus labeled. They are definitely child molesters, and there is every reason for anyone not making a clinical diagnosis to consider them as pedophiles.
---
"Is it not possible to be attracted to children, yet also a good person?

Perhaps, though you should avoid placing yourself in a position to be tempted to harm a child. If you were a school teacher with this issue I would consider that premeditation, of a potential attack, or abuse of trust.
---
"Being attracted to someone doesn't mean you would ever act on that attraction, or even think that attraction is okay. So what's wrong with being a pedophile?

It is a life threatening mental illness. This does not mean that it is the persons fault, but it does mean that they are a potential danger to themselves and others. It would be ideal if dispassionate research came up with a way to contain that risk, but the pedophile is not the victim here. The child is. Your sympathy is an interesting symptom.

If you were on the jury of a parent accused of murder for killing a pedophile that was abusing their child how would you vote?

"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."

I want to thank you for this post. it was interesting, thoughtful, and a viewpoint not commonly publicized. so thanks!!!

I was fifteen when I was raped.

Call me biased, but in my opinion any adult who has expressed sexual desires for children or young adults, beyond the expression necessary when seeking therapy, should be penalized. In addition, anyone who has ever sought therapy, been penalized, or otherwise identified with these interests, should never be permitted to work in an environment that would require contact with said potential victims.

Our society has been moving forward and not backwards in our collective stance on this matter. No longer do children have to be the victims who 'consented' to the sexual interests of adults, who are inherently in a position of authority and power. We protect our children from others, from themselves and from society as a whole. I would rather be 'prude' than have to face a child who has been raped, experienced what I went through, and then had to find their center before they could heal, thank you very much.

And many child molesters are not pedophiles are all. They aren't attracted to children, they just hurt children because children are vulnerable. It is estimated that only 2-10% of child molesters meet the criteria for pedophilia.

They just hurt children because children are vulnerable.... lol. That is the basis of pedophilia. That's the whole reason why the government says that it's wrong to have sex with kids under 18 when your not a minor anymore. The government basically said, that kids under 18 don't know what they're doing. They aren't capable of making the right decisions. And I agree with this statement. Also, why defend pedophilia at all?

+mspin

http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/weezyf

Who buys child pornography?

Do you think producing kiddie porn can be done without harming children?

"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."
-Arthur C. Clarke

I think you will find that, in most jurisdictions, the act of photographing pornography with intent to profit and distribute it makes it illegal. What porn is legally defined as is the subject of continuing debates all the way up to the Supreme Court. in terms of evolving a definition that does not infringe the rights of "free speech".

But intention, as noted here earlier, is tough to define with enough legal precision to be valuable in obtaining a conviction. So rules have developed around this to make it easier for the prosecutors.

Just as in many forms of sexual attack, a loss of control is involved. Even when teens video each other performing sexual acts, the actors often lose control of how and where the images are shown, and to whom. It's the loss of control that is psychologically damaging, whether a videocam is used or something else is used.

Moreover, when small children {"kiddies"} are exploited and photographed by others --- including other minors older than they are --- they might be [and, many times, ARE] kept completely in the dark about what is going to be done with the images and why they are supposed to be playing with one another in this way at all. Exploitation in this manner is certainly actionable in most states. Regardless of whether the cam operator is 15 or 50.

People who love children in terms of loving their imagination and energy and world-view certainly will not wish them harm, sexually or any other physical way. They treat their charges as persons, human beings with rights of respect and privacy, not as pieces of meat.

"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon

Well done for speaking out. I completely agree with you about how important the distinction is between paedophilia and child sexual abuse.

In fact I would go further; it often seems to me (in the UK) that the public hides behind a pretence of concern for children, in order to have an outlet for the desire to castigate and ostracise people whom they classify as dirty. In other words, I think public outrage about child sexual abuse is more about punishing perverts than protecting children.

Obviously I'm not saying that people don't care about children, or that any adult should be allowed to interact sexually with a child, or that we should respect any people who claim it's OK to do so. But what I do believe is that an unconsidered hatred of deviants is the primary motivator in public attitudes towards paedophilia, and that it gets in the way of protecting children from abuse.

Here is a little of what I take as evidence:

* Attitudes towards non-sexual abuse. If people were primarily motivated by the desire to protect children, their attitudes to violence against children or serious neglect of children should be similar to their attitudes towards sexual abuse, since (if I understand it correctly) the evidence is that non-sexual abuse can be just as harmful as sexual abuse.
- But if you just want to punish dirty perverts, then sexual abuse is automatically worse than violent or neglectful carers.

* Failure to differentiate between non-offending paedophiles and child sex abusers. If protection of children was the primary concern, this should be a crucial distinction, and the hatred would be primarily directed at child sex abusers. But most people don't even know there is a difference; many people even refuse to believe that there are child sex abusers who are not particularly sexually interested in children.
- But if you just want to punish dirty perverts, there is no need to distinguish between those who imagine sex with children and those who sexually abuse real children.

* Equating simulated child pornography with the depiction of actual child sex abuse. Again, if protection of children was the major factor, people should make a clear distinction between viewing images of an actual child being raped, and viewing images of an imaginary child being raped. The US Supreme Court fortunately seems to have had the sense to see the difference, but many members of the public can't, and not all countries recognise the distinction. (In case anyone reading this is confused, consider the difference between watching a slasher movie and knowingly watching a snuff film.)
- But if you just want to punish dirty perverts, simulated and actual child pornography are the same thing.

* Sex offender disclosure laws. As I understand it, all professional organisations involved in child protection in the UK, including the police, are against public disclosure laws for convicted sex offenders because they believe such laws would drive sex offenders underground. This would make them harder to monitor and more likely to interact with other sex offenders, and the laws would end up harming the children they are meant to protect.
- But if you just want to punish dirty perverts, then you need to know where they live, right?

So which is more important? Punishing dirty perverts, or protecting children? It's time people realised they aren't the same thing.