Let me make a hypothetical person with the following characteristics
He finds child pornography to be deplorable as it includes the violation and abuse of children, which he finds unethical
He does not believe children are ever capable of giving consent to a sexual act with an adult
He is inexplicitly sexually attracted to children
Now the questions…
Do you believe he is evil? Untrustworthy?
Do you believe there must be something psycologically wrong with him
Would you trust him around your children?
I am not claiming such people are the majority of pedophiles, nor that such people even exist…just trying to make the distinction in what is the part of this taboo we find threatning, The potential threat to children, or the fact that said man may fantasize about children and we find that icky.
The potential threat to children. He has a motive. Why give him means or opportunity?
I find the idea of being sexually attracted to children to be unpleasant, or “icky” in your phrasing. I find most sexual attractions that I do not share (homosexuality, sado-masochism, fetishes in general, sheep in lingerie, whatever) to be “icky” as well. Most of those fetishes don’t involve danger to the innocent (apart from the sheep), and therefore don’t need to be regarded in the same way.
Well… let’s alter the circumstances a bit, for some perspective.
No.
In my case, no. In the pedophile case, I would say yes.
Depends.
Ultimately, as far as I’m concerned, being a pedophile is dependent on one’s actions. So long as one does not take any inappropriate actions with children, then one is not a pedophile, legally speaking.
(For purposes of argument, I will include the ownage and/or use of child porn as inappropriate actions involving children).
I mean, how do you keep from groping women at a nude beach? How do bank tellers keep from shoving wads of hundreds down their pants?
Ultimately, it boils down to the man. If his actions are flawless, then I am inclined to trust him. After all, how would I know he was a pedophile if he’s never offended?
Although if I did know he was a pedophile… I’d have to admit I wouldn’t likely trust him. In my old line of work (mental health care), I knew too many pedophiles…
My answers would be the same as Shodan’s. As far as “psychologically wrong” my definition is: Behavior that has the potential to cause serious physical or emotional harm to the person or others around him. Now, that is a very rough definition. He hasn’t actually done anything, and I suppose he could be perfectly happy with just his thoughts for the rest of his life.
As to the untrustworthiness, well, that is a gut reaction. I see the point of Wang -Ka’s analogy, but untrustworthiness is at the core of pedophila, at least as a behavior. Children, unlike grown women and banks, are supposed to be able to trust the adults around them to act protectively and nurturingly toward them. Treating a child as a means of sexual pleasure is a great betrayal of that implicit social contract. I would not be able to see past the potential.
Yes, just as I would think someone who WANTS to rape (or rob a bank, or kill someone, etc.), but doesn’t, is evil. Everyone has a degree of evil in them. Is he untrustworthy? Absolutely.
. Do you believe there must be something psycologically wrong with him
I’ve thought about robbing a bank, and about killing people. To quote Xander on BtVS, “Yeah, I mean, who hasn’t just idly thought about taking out the whole place with a semi-automatic?” I’ll agree that those are evil thoughts, but it doesn’t make me evil.
I think Master Wang-Ka’s analysis is apt. There are legal, legitimate, harmless outlets for fantasies, including ‘child pornography’ that doesn’t involve actual children and is protected by law (written fiction, original artwork). cher3’s definition makes sense, I think. Some people think their thoughts and still go through life as functional adults. There’s a line that’s crossed with physical action, and anyone who crosses that line has psychological issues beyond what the action itself portrays, which are probably, from what I’ve read, untreatable.
If someone’s already acted, I wouldn’t trust them around my children. But if someone refrains from acting, then I would probably never know, and be none the worse for it.
Do you find attraction to children comparable to someone with a rape fetish? Rape is always illegal and unethical, however there is plently pornography which simulates rape. Should we fear that people with this rape fetish will be compelled to actually commit the rape act. Should they be deemed untrustworthy to see the distinction between fantasty and immoral reality?
I got advice for you, buddy. Move as far into (any) wilderness as you can find and become a hermit, cause if you had any idea of what goes through the mind of the people in line at the bank around you, you would wet your pants.
If thoughts are criminal, no one is innocent.
I wouldn’t knowingly let someone who is sexually excited by children around my kid, but hes welcome to watch the sheep.
Some years back, a women’s organization at a public university tried an innovative approach to its public service messages. They printed out and distributed thousands of flyers, each of which bore the headline THIS MAN IS A POTENTIAL RAPIST. Underneath the headline was one of several names of actual male students, chosen at random from the university directory. The students named in the fliers were not amused, and demanded that the flyers be pulled and that a public apology be issued to each one of them. The moderator of the organization that had distributed the flyers refused both requests, and stated that the students had no cause to be offended since the statements were perfectly accurate as they had been printed.
The fact that someone is potentially capable of an action does not necessarily mean that they are likely to carry it out at a moment’s notice. There’s a major difference between being sexually attracted to a person and being incapable of restraining oneself from behaving in a sexual manner towards that person.
I got advice for you, buddy. Move as far into (any) wilderness as you can find and become a hermit, cause if you had any idea of what goes through the mind of the people in line at the bank around you, you would wet your pants.
I don’t recall ever declaring that people have pure thoughts.
If people around me knew some of the stuff I thought about, they’d never speak to me again. Same as you. Same as everyone else on the planet.
So then if you knew a person who told you they get off on, say, writing fiction about raping small children, but would never actually act on these urges, you would say to them, “Hey, that’s great! At least you have an harmless outlet!”? Sorry, but you lost me there. Even if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that that person would never commit such hideous crimes, the mere fact that they fantasize about doing so reveals something is really twisted inside their heads.
And yes, I think the same thing about someone with a rape fetish. If a person gets off on the thought of violating another human being, there’s something wrong with that person. If he never lives out that fantasy, that’s great for his potential rape victims, but it doesn’t change the fact that he is wrong to enjoy the thought.
And no, thoughts are not criminal, but they certainly can be evil. There is a difference.
Why should the moral concept of evil necessarily be connected to action? I suppose if one believes that the concepts of “good” and “evil” are meaningless, then one would not believe that such thoughts were evil. But then one would have no justification for condemning the actions either. If evil does not exist, then actually molesting children is no worse than wanting to molest children. If evil does exist, then it would seem to me that both desires and actions could be considered such.
Besides, do you really, honestly believe that our hypothetical man who fantasizes about child rape (but never actually commits it) is not having evil thoughts?
Thoughts about something evil are not evil in and of themselves.
Look: having sex with children is bad because it hurts the children. Thinking about having sex with children doesn’t hurt children. We may choose to take such thoughts as indicators that a person may hurt children, but an indicator of a possibility is all they are.
And nothing you said actually addressed what I said except to state that you disagree with it. I said why does evil necessarily have to be associated with action (i.e. harm), and you basically just said “because it does.” Evil is a *concept * describing a moral state of something; that something can be a desire or an action. Why shouldn’t it?
Evil, no. Burdened, yes. Untrustworthy–well, not around children. He may be quite a good accountant or something.
2. Do you believe there must be something psycologically wrong with him
Yes. It is not normal to be attracted to small children. Nubile teens, understandable. Small children who are immature in every way, wrong.
3. Would you trust him around your children?
No. Nor should this hypothetical person, if he is so determined not to act, be insulted by that. Throwing him in tempation’s way is not helpful to him. In any case, I have far more responsibility to my children’s well-being (or any other child’s, for that matter) than to an adult’s sensibilities.
I wouldn’t consider him technically “evil” if he hasn’t actually acted on his desires, and in fact considers said urges to be morally “wrong.”
Untrustworthy, though. Pitiable, perhaps—compared to the rightous contempt or hatred towards a pedophile who has actually abused children—but still untrustworthy.
Kind of reminds me, though…did anyone see that “ER” episode-
…With the guy who was starting to become overwhelmed with pedophilic urges, but hadn’t acted on them, and was actually sickened and horrified by them? He evil carved the word “EVIL” into his own forehead to try and “scare people away.”
…Guys like him, who haven’t harmed others, are the only POSSIBLE form of pedophile I could even IMAGINE feeling anything approaching sympathy for.
Some sort of intense psychiatric treatment might be able to help them. Maybe. (Or possibly just Seppuku, to prevent the possibility of ever victimizing children, and to hold onto one’s honor in the hereafter.)
As have I, but I’ve not actually gone through and done either, nor do I intend to. And plenty of men fantasize about raping people, and may have strong sexual urges in general, but most men are able to live normal lives. I, a hetero man, can interact and work with women without succumbing to urges to persuade, coerce, or force women into bed, and am fully capable of accepting a “no”. How is that different with pedophiles? I think we have this idea that pedophiles have no ability to control themselves, or at least their ability to control their behavior is far less than the average non-asexual person. How can this be?
No
No
As long as he had sufficient impulse control, yes.