# Pedophiliacs: Should we feel sympathy for them?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [September 17, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462 "2009-09-17T17:19:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 115

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\
**Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462/115 "2009-09-24T03:33:59Z")

</div>

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> The discussion will go better, ISTM, if we can focus on restrictions we can reasonably impose and not focus on strawmen.

Ah, so you’re not saying it’s an unreasonable request, you just don’t think you can enforce it.

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Good. Keep that in mind. Very, very clearly in mind.

:rolleyes:

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. Child molestation is not undetectable. That is to say - some people have the impulse to have sex with children, they act on it, it comes to the attention of the authorities, society acts to eliminate the threat.
> 
> Like I said, it’s not gong to come down to a war, unless you count criminal laws against child molestation as a war.

Do you read? You haven’t been talking about criminal laws against child molestation. You’ve been talking about murdering or brainwashing anyone who doesn’t share your ideas of what ought to be considered sexy. Post 42 in this thread, back on page 1 where this conversation thread started.

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> On the one side, we have the vast majority of Western society. On the other side, there are a few perverts. Not much of a war.

Once again, my side has at least 20-33% of the adult male population, in this hypotehtical fighting against an extremist minority trying to exterminate them. I think you overestimate your chances.

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> There are no such studies. The causes of pedophilia are not known for certain.

Concession accepted.

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> This is a distinction without relevance.

You’re the one who brought it up.

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> If you are the sort of person who finds himself in a situation where he can molest a child, and does so, then he is a child molester by definition. And he had at least some inclination towards pedophilia, or the notion of attacking the child would not have occurred to him.

Just like how if you rape a woman, you must have thought she was attractive on some level, so the bitch should take it as a complement, right?

Guess you know better than the FBI sex offender experts who’s job it is to analyze these things, though…

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Your comparison of heterosexuals and rapists is fine, but it has nothing to do with exclusive vs. non-exclusive pedophiles.

Kind of the point. Exclusive vs. non-exclusive pedophiles has nothing to do with pedophiles versus child molesters.

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> I am a heterosexual. I find women sexually attractive. But I have never raped anyone, even though my attraction to women is exclusive - I have no impulse towards men or children.
> 
> I believe this is the source of much of the anger towards child molestors. Before I met my wife, I was celibate. Therefore I know from personal experience that it is perfectly possible to refrain from acting on one’s sexual urges based on a belief that such action would be morally wrong. But if I can manage it, I become that much less sympathetic towards pedophiles who don’t. This is especially so when fornication is “less wrong” than child molesting.

And you assume (with no evidence) that I’m different from you in this regard why?

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> That’s why I find stuff about not being able to walk down the street because you might cast an eye on a child to be annoying at best and disingenuous at worst.

You haven’t been reading. **Freudian Slit** was discussing precisely that. I’m not making this shit up.

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> We as a society do not care what someone’s impulses are - control them, and there is no issue.

You haven’t been living in this society long, have you?

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> If some pedophile complains about how difficult it is to have these impulses and not act on them, then my response is twofold - [list=a][li]It’s not that tough - I managed it, so can you, and [\*]even if I’m wrong and it is much more difficult for you to control yourself, tough shit - you damn well better do it anyway, because no excuses are going to be good enough.[/list][/li]  
> Regards,  
> Shodan

And you think my responses differ?

> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> No, it means you have a list of people who are permitted to have the material. It’s like the difference between a shotgun and a machine gun. The former can be owned by Joe Schmoe. The latter requires more hoops for the jumpin’ because they are generally illegal.

Please explain to me why you’re using weapons as your analogy. What possible thing can I do to someone when I have a certain kind of porno magezine versus a different kind of porno magezine? How does my posession of porn enable me to harm people?

> [@fuzzypickles](#):
>
> I’d say that’s generally the case, yeah.

Ah, so you assume we’re all delusional.

> [@fuzzypickles](#):
>
> Nobody’s claiming that child/child relationships are any more or less legitimate than adult/adult relationships.

Seemed to be the implication of what I was quoting there.

> [@fuzzypickles](#):
>
> The problem with adult/child relationships is that it throws off the balance of power.

So, Bill Gates has sex with someone, it’s automatically rape? He’s got way more power and influence than them, so obviously there’s a power imbalance.

> [@fuzzypickles](#):
>
> The adult has a body of social experience which the child has yet to encounter,

And this experience is relevent how? Since it’s principally about a social system the child isn’t a part of, I fail to see what possible advantage it could convey.

> [@fuzzypickles](#):
>
> and the adult also is acting on physical and emotional desires which the child has not experienced yet.

And? What possible relevence has the motivation to do with anything? Men and women shouldn’t be allowed to form relationships since they’re acting on desires the other gender has never experienced. :rolleyes:

> [@fuzzypickles](#):
>
> Sure, adult/child relationships are a necessary part of the nurturing process (parents, teachers, coaches, etc.) but in order for them to work, certain boundaries must be set.

So you think that power issues are going to be inherently harmful to a relationship, so you only acknowledge relationships where there is an inherent power imbalance?

> [@furt](#):
>
> Well, shit, why stop there? Test for rape and bondage fantasies, for anger issues … shit, for kleptomania. Why not? Put every single person who has non-approved thoughts in camps. In the totalitarian state you prefer, I’d be on the side of the pedophiles.  
> Actually, I’m on the side of the pedophile in this thread. Congratulations, **Cesario** , on keeping your cool in dealing with a number of people with reading comprehension and logic issues. I admire your restraint in um, several different areas.

Thank you. Considering the persistent urge I’ve been having to beat people over the head with heavy blunt objects due to the lack of reading comprehension, I don’t think I’ve been maintaining my cool that well, but it’s nice of you to say so anyway.

> [@constanze](#):
>
> In order to make sure that the legal porn, made from licensed animators, isn’t mixed and manipulated with illegal porn from molested children.

Which impacts the study how?

> [@constanze](#):
>
> Yes, you can digitally stamp an image with software. But somebody who’s computersavy can surely take that stamp and reproduce it and stamp an illegal image, too.

And you can stamp on a barcode that uniquely identifies the image, so all you have to do is compare the image in the database of legitimate material the barcode refers to the image it’s stamped on. Very simple verrification.

But then, as a software developer, I resolve these kinds of issues all the time.

> [@constanze](#):
>
> Also, I wanted data and studies on how porn, esp. simulated porn, actually affects pedophiles. Theorizing from personal experience is one thing, real studies with a lot of data is much better. And a controlled setting makes gathering the data easier.

Not really. You’ll get more accurate information if you give one group the materials, send them home, have them live their lives, and compare their future incarceration rates to the control group.

> [@constanze](#):
>
> Maybe because I don’t know what terms exactly people are using here. Is a pedophile everybody who’s attracted to people under 18, or is it divided into ephebophiles who are attracted to teens, and pedophiles who are attracted to pre-puberty children? I guess many people use the latter to mean both groups.

May people are idiots who don’t know what words mean. You seem to understand the distinction.

> [@constanze](#):
>
> This is a difficult question. If there was a reliable cure - I wonder how many are wired, and how many are emotionally stunted and thus would benefit from therapy - then I would consider it better to cure the pedophiles than have them spend their whole lives locked up or unable to fulfil their attractions.  
> Because if they are wired and there is no cure, we have to find a humane way for them to live out their attractions, without causing harm to real children, and that’s going to be quite difficult.

While I have no intrinsic objection to helping those who are distressed, I have no doubt that someone would attempt to force this “cure” on unwilling subjects. That cannot be morally justified, and would justify pretty much any action taken in the name of stopping it.

> [@constanze](#):
>
> Gays are different in that respect because the gay partner isn’t molested or harmed; real children are harmed if you have sex with them.

And this is relevent to people’s **thoughts** how?

> [@constanze](#):
>
> You quote my whole paragraph and read that I would rape someone??? Please work on your comprehension. You don’t want posters to put words in your mouth, then don’t do it yourself. Nowhere did I say that I would rape somebody. I said that it frightens me to consider a lifetime of being alone (aside from friends) because you have no hope of finding a partner. That has got nothing to do with what I would do. Even more so because not only I have a partner, but because I have a hope of finding somebody.

Ah, so this was on the subject of pity, not fear-mongering. My mistake.

> [@constanze](#):
>
> As for the gay people, they didn’t rape somebody.

Neither did pedophiles.

> [@constanze](#):
>
> However their situation is similar in that one aspect that most of them try to suppress or overcome their orientation, and fail. That’s why I wonder if pedophiles are able to suppress their attraction forever.

Why should we suppress it? Seems to me that only leads to psychological strain and impulse control problems making someone more likely to act out. Self-acceptance seems important in either case.

> [@constanze](#):
>
> Maybe you are a wonderful example of self-restraint and can keep it up.

Again, with the idea that **not raping people** is some titanic act of self-restraint. Also:

> [@constanze](#):
>
> (but then, you also said that you are attracted to adults, too? So do you count as “real” pedophile? I thought pedophiles were unable to feel attracted to adults?)

You thought wrong. A pedophile is someone who prefers children. This need not be an exclusive orientation like heterosexuality or homosexuality. It merely describes the primary orientation. I assure you I fit the criteria for the sexual orientation (if not the definition for the paraphelia due to the lack of “marked distress or interpersonal difficulty”).

> [@constanze](#):
>
> But the amount of molested children and the real-world experience of “normal” adults tells us that on the broad scale self-restraint alone won’t work. So it’s back to locking up or helping in some way. I want the latter to work, if we find out how.

If you want to help, you should get yourself informed about the facts. I reccomend this for starters:

> [@](#):
>
> Not only are pedophiles unlikely to rape children (in the same way heterosexual males are unlikely to rape women), but statistical evidence has shown that nonpedophiles are more than twice as likely to molest children than pedophiles are.
> 
> Don’t believe me? I don’t blame you. Here are the statistics.
> 
> FBI sex offender expert Kenneth Lanning stated in a 2001 interview that “About 90 percent [of child molesters] are so-called “situational child molesters” who capitalize on opportunities to molest children but don’t necessarily prefer sex with children … The 10 percent of child molesters who make up the second category are the bona fide “pedophiles,” those who genuinely favor sex with children.”
> 
> Here’s the link to the interview:  
> [http://web.archive.org/web/20030621002758/http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html](http://web.archive.org/web/20030621002758/http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html)
> 
> Lanning’s figure is supported by various sources. Here is another source citing similar figures:  
> [http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/nov2006/pedophile1.html#Occurrence\_in\_child\_sex\_offenders](http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/nov2006/pedophile1.html#Occurrence_in_child_sex_offenders)
> 
> Studies of adult arousability has shown that pedophiles make up as much as 20-33% of the adult male population. 20% is the lowest number I’ve seen, but I haven’t seen the actual study purporting this number. I have seen, and can link to the study purporting the 33% figure.
> 
> [97-048 article](http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html)
> 
> For those uninterested in reading the whole article, it was done using a number of volunteers, and measuring their arousal using a device attached to the penis as they were shown different materials. While 85% showed some arousal to pedophilic stimuli, in 33% of their test subjects, the arousal equaled or exceeded the arousal to adult stimuli.
> 
> Taking the conservative numbers together, the math works out as follows:
> 
> Pedophile molesters 10% \< 90% Nonpedophile molesters
> 
> Pedophiles 20% \< 80% Nonpedophiles
> 
> 10/20 is then the proportion of pedophile molesters to pedophiles relative to the figure 90/80 that represents nonpedophile molesters to nonpedophiles
> 
> 10/20 = .5 \< 1.125 = 90/80
> 
> The proportion thus is 1 to 2.25, making a given nonpedophile more than twice as likely to molest a child as a given pedophile.

> [@constanze](#):
>
> Obviously, people are different, and many are interested in only sex, not a relationship (although personally, I consider those people to be stunted emotionally, too, and need therapy). But those people are not the problem, they can have porn and robots. It’s the people who are wired to be only attracted to underage people, not adult people, who are not emotionally stunted, that I’m thinking off, and feeling sorry for.

You are aware that emotional relationships and sex need not go along with one another, yes? That you can have celebate emotional relationships just as well as you can have meaningless sex.

> [@constanze](#):
>
> I didn’t read the real-doll thread. But maybe you misunderstood my point. If a person wants to have sex with underage people and nothing more, then get him a doll, end of story.  
> I have no sympathy or anything for that kind of person, because he bores me and I can’t connect to somebody who’s only interested in sex.

I see, so you can only feel sympathy for people who have your particular views in terms of sex. Got it.

> [@constanze](#):
>
> But what about people who want a real relationship? Many real adult people who are attracted to adult people are deeply unhappy to the point of depression because they can’t find a partner (due to the impossible standards of society re looks and money), and they aren’t content with banging a robot or a whore. Those people, I feel sympathy for.

What about them?

> [@Freudian\_Slit](#):
>
> :rolleyes: You’ve never been aware of anyone wanting to have sex with you? Ever?

See, that wasn’t so hard to understand, was it?

> [@Blackberry](#):
>
> You keep saying this. The point is that \*\*you don’t think an adult having sex with a prepubescent child is necessarily rape \*\* (morally). That’s the root of all the disagreement, as far as I can tell. So no, I would never rape someone if I couldn’t get a consenting partner for some reason, but if I DID believe I had a consenting partner and it was only an unjust law that was standing in our way, and that was going to be the case with everyone I might want to have sex with in my life…then I don’t know, maybe I would do it. Same as gay people having sex even when it’s a crime, but morally I still wouldn’t consider them criminals.
> 
> Of course I don’t agree with you that a child can ever consent to sex with an adult, but based on YOUR beliefs, it wouldn’t morally constitute rape.

The difference is who is threatened by the violation of that unjust law. I don’t give two shits what happens to me for violating an unjust law. Indeed, I consider it a moral imperative to violate unjust laws. But in this situation, society effectively holds a gun to my would-be-lover’s head. If we go through with this, society will do everything in its power to turn that event into a rape, and said lover into a wreaked-for-life rape victim. And while I don’t accept responsibility for that evil, I also can’t bring myself to risk someone I care about in the pursuit of toppling said unjust law.

Hope that clears things up.

> [@Freudian\_Slit](#):
>
> **Cesario** , have you been following the other thread? (Back the fuck off my kiddos, pedo-creep!)

No, I don’t think I’ve seen that one. I assume from the title, it’s in the Pit?

> [@Freudian\_Slit](#):
>
> I’ve posted before that pedophiles can do things that creep out kids (or for that matter parents) without actually raping them. Do you think that thread is an example of overreaction and why or why not?

Considering I spent nearly an hour the other day chatting with a very attractive four-year-old in the presence of her mother and older brother, and the only reaction was for the girl to try to get her brother to leave so she could have me to herself, yes, I do think you’ve been horribly over-reacting.

> [@Guinastasia](#):
>
> Who said that anyone who has committed a crime doesn’t deserve punishment? And most people here are talking about those who HAVEN’T molested anyone.

I know I have been.

> [@Guinastasia](#):
>
> **Cesario** , I think most gay rights groups do not like being lumped in with NAMBLA. It’s not about gay rights, and I think most of our gay posters here would be offended. I’m not trying to be nasty, but that is one thing I’m sure of. And I don’t think a group that compares child molestation (and call it what you will, but adult/child relationships are NOT equal), to being gay CAN be related to gay rights.

Whether they like it or not, the organization was founded because a bunch of homophobic bigots were trying to use the age of consent as a weapon of discrimination against gays. You might want to look up the incident some time.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedophiliacs-should-we-feel-sympathy-for-them/510462)._