Being a pedophile and being an abuser are not the same thing. Many pedophiles are disgusted with themselves, and one of the criteria for diagnosis is a sense of distress arising from inappropriate attraction. Some willingly live full-time in mental health facilities to ensure they have no access to children. It’s ableist and harmful to non-offending pedophiles to be conflated with rapists. I firmly believe that it poses an increased risk for CSA as they feel they need to hide their disorder instead of getting help and support.
It’s exactly as evil and wrong no matter the age of their victim.
That’s kind of my point. Insisting that someone who rapes a 15-year-old is a pedophile comes with the implication that it would have been less bad to rape them at 18.
So like I said in my previous comment, no one is driven by such strong compulsion that they must sexually assault someone. Being a pedophile is not a sexual orientation it is literally a desire to commit sexual violence. If someone told me “I am so driven to commit acts of sexual violence against rhe vulnerable that I am voluntarily putting myself into a mental health facility” my first thought would be that I hope they are being involuntarily held.
Pedophilia is not a disability. No i am not being ableist by directly correlating pedophilia with rapists. They are literally obsessed with rape. They see children as a means to an end for their personal sexual gratification. I would react to someone saying they are a pedophile the same way as if someone told me they desperately want to sexually assault someone.
Being a pedophile is not a sexual orientation. It is not a sexuality.
No one said that pedophilia is a sexual orientation; it’s a mental disorder. Sexual orientations are not mental disorders.
Being a pedophile is not synonymous with abusing children. Those suffering from pedophilic disorder are capable of not harming children, just as those without pedophilic disorder are capable of sexually abusing children. The disorder and the act of harm are different things.
You can think of it like drug addiction. The urge to use the drug is there, but you still get to choose whether or not you act on it. Choosing the right thing is a lot easier with professional mental care and community support.
Ideally we want to identify and help every pedophile before they abuse a child, and we can’t do that if we conflate them with rapists while they’re still innocent.
the beginning part of the comment is already iffy/barely fine but this paragraph…
…comes with the implication it’s less bad to rape them at 18
no it doesn’t imply that. that’s such a weird leap; it’s a really blatant misrepresentation of what’s actually going on, holy shit. it comes from this habit of centering the aggressor’s identity or “how bad they are” instead of looking at what consent law is actually designed to do.
please do some research on the basic principles behind statutory law and child psychology. statutory age doesn’t exist to rate rapists on some “less bad vs more bad” scale; it exists to protect vulnerable young people.
it’s not “who’s worse,” it’s “does this person need automatic protection?” and the age of consent (depending on your state) is the line where society says that the answer to “does this person need protection” is always yes; not because the victim below that age “counts more,” but because anyone that young can’t legally consent, period.
as an example, if your local age of consent is 18, it doesn’t imply it’s “less bad” for someone 18 to be assaulted. both cases involve victims who deserve care and safety; the difference is that the law gives full, immediate, unequivocal protection to anyone 17 or under based on what we know about human development.
i genuinely hope this is helpful, because this pattern of defining consent law around the aggressor’s identity rather than the safety and protection of the victims is exactly where these misunderstandings come from.
I don’t think I understand what you mean. Legal age of consent and the definition of pedophilia aren’t related. If the age of consent were 9, it would still be a disorder to experience primary attraction to people that young. Similarly, if the age were 25, it would not be pedophilia experience primary attraction to 19-year-old people.
You really don’t think the Republicans defending him from the label of pedophile aren’t motivated by the thinking that raping small children is worse than raping teenagers? People often seem downright enthusiastic about the idea of child abusers being raped and beaten by other violent criminals in prison, who seem to be considered the good guys by comparison.
exactly. “definition of pedophelia” isn’t related to the age of consent at all. the identity of the aggressor doesn’t matter when the victim 100% needs protection in all cases.
people who defend sexual abusers use whatever arguments get them their way. republicans also use whatever response gets them power. and my response is to call them violent and abusive for drawing a line in a space where we know that consent isn’t even an option.
once again, try centering the victims of sexual violence rather than Epstein et al or their primary attractions. primary sexual attraction is not my primary concern; first and foremost i care about preventing the perpetuation of mass sexual violence.
Being a pedophile and being an abuser are not the same thing. Many pedophiles are disgusted with themselves, and one of the criteria for diagnosis is a sense of distress arising from inappropriate attraction. Some willingly live full-time in mental health facilities to ensure they have no access to children. It’s ableist and harmful to non-offending pedophiles to be conflated with rapists. I firmly believe that it poses an increased risk for CSA as they feel they need to hide their disorder instead of getting help and support.
That’s kind of my point. Insisting that someone who rapes a 15-year-old is a pedophile comes with the implication that it would have been less bad to rape them at 18.
So like I said in my previous comment, no one is driven by such strong compulsion that they must sexually assault someone. Being a pedophile is not a sexual orientation it is literally a desire to commit sexual violence. If someone told me “I am so driven to commit acts of sexual violence against rhe vulnerable that I am voluntarily putting myself into a mental health facility” my first thought would be that I hope they are being involuntarily held.
Pedophilia is not a disability. No i am not being ableist by directly correlating pedophilia with rapists. They are literally obsessed with rape. They see children as a means to an end for their personal sexual gratification. I would react to someone saying they are a pedophile the same way as if someone told me they desperately want to sexually assault someone.
Being a pedophile is not a sexual orientation. It is not a sexuality.
No one said that pedophilia is a sexual orientation; it’s a mental disorder. Sexual orientations are not mental disorders.
Being a pedophile is not synonymous with abusing children. Those suffering from pedophilic disorder are capable of not harming children, just as those without pedophilic disorder are capable of sexually abusing children. The disorder and the act of harm are different things.
You can think of it like drug addiction. The urge to use the drug is there, but you still get to choose whether or not you act on it. Choosing the right thing is a lot easier with professional mental care and community support.
Ideally we want to identify and help every pedophile before they abuse a child, and we can’t do that if we conflate them with rapists while they’re still innocent.
the beginning part of the comment is already iffy/barely fine but this paragraph…
no it doesn’t imply that. that’s such a weird leap; it’s a really blatant misrepresentation of what’s actually going on, holy shit. it comes from this habit of centering the aggressor’s identity or “how bad they are” instead of looking at what consent law is actually designed to do.
please do some research on the basic principles behind statutory law and child psychology. statutory age doesn’t exist to rate rapists on some “less bad vs more bad” scale; it exists to protect vulnerable young people.
it’s not “who’s worse,” it’s “does this person need automatic protection?” and the age of consent (depending on your state) is the line where society says that the answer to “does this person need protection” is always yes; not because the victim below that age “counts more,” but because anyone that young can’t legally consent, period.
as an example, if your local age of consent is 18, it doesn’t imply it’s “less bad” for someone 18 to be assaulted. both cases involve victims who deserve care and safety; the difference is that the law gives full, immediate, unequivocal protection to anyone 17 or under based on what we know about human development.
i genuinely hope this is helpful, because this pattern of defining consent law around the aggressor’s identity rather than the safety and protection of the victims is exactly where these misunderstandings come from.
I don’t think I understand what you mean. Legal age of consent and the definition of pedophilia aren’t related. If the age of consent were 9, it would still be a disorder to experience primary attraction to people that young. Similarly, if the age were 25, it would not be pedophilia experience primary attraction to 19-year-old people.
You really don’t think the Republicans defending him from the label of pedophile aren’t motivated by the thinking that raping small children is worse than raping teenagers? People often seem downright enthusiastic about the idea of child abusers being raped and beaten by other violent criminals in prison, who seem to be considered the good guys by comparison.
exactly. “definition of pedophelia” isn’t related to the age of consent at all. the identity of the aggressor doesn’t matter when the victim 100% needs protection in all cases.
people who defend sexual abusers use whatever arguments get them their way. republicans also use whatever response gets them power. and my response is to call them violent and abusive for drawing a line in a space where we know that consent isn’t even an option.
once again, try centering the victims of sexual violence rather than Epstein et al or their primary attractions. primary sexual attraction is not my primary concern; first and foremost i care about preventing the perpetuation of mass sexual violence.