this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
7 points (76.9% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6295 readers
152 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Basically what it says on the tin. Having read though some of the materials on the issue, I am baffled by how recklessly the word is used, given the consequences of such usage.

Pedophiles are the people with sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It doesn't matter whether they do or don't act on that attraction; in fact, many don't. It is a sexual interest/mental condition that cannot be reliably changed.

Child molesters, on the other hand, are not necessarily pedophiles - in fact, 50 to 75% of child molesters do not have pedophilic interest.

Both facts can be sourced from the respective Wikipedia article and more info can be found in respective research.

Why does this matter?

Because the current use of the word reinforces stigma around pedophilia and makes it less likely for people with pedophilic disorder to reach out for help for the fear they would be outed and treated the same as actual child abusers.

This, in turn, makes those in a vulnerable position more likely to cross the line and get into the category of child abusers instead of coming for help. Also, it heavily affects people who did nothing to deserve such treatment.

What should we do?

We should leave the word "pedophile" to the context in which it belongs, which is the mental health and sexuality spheres, and avoid using the term to describe sexual offenders against minors. At the very least, one would most likely be wrong. At most, one would participate in the cycle of child abuse.

top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JonsJava@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

This is a prime example of what the community is about.

With that said, advocating violence (read: not justice) will not be tolerated. Vigilante mindsets will not be allowed.

Really getting tired of removing comments calling for death. Advocate for strict justice, not death itself.

[–] admiralpatrick@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Good truly unpopular opinion, and mostly good discussion on the points made. That said, I think pretty much all the points that were going to be made have been made. Locking thread.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago

Agreed. This is a pet peeve of mine. Pedophilia is not a crime. Child molestation is a crime. It makes it hard for pedophiles to get the treatment they need and we lose focus on the real danger, people who actually touch children.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

If one assumes that merely by being a pedophile someone is danger to kids then by the same logic being a heterosexual is a danger to the opposite sex.

Most people in jail for raping children are "normal" rapists with no specific interest towards kids. They're just an easy target. Being able to rape someone requires a special kind of twisted mind. Just being sexually interested about it alone in general isn't enough. Many people have sexual interests they're not going to pursue for moral reasons. Pedophiles can and usually do have morals as well.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 4 months ago

I think your conclusion here is a sound one, but I don't know if the logic works. Because for a heterosexual teleiophile, there are multiple legitimate avenues for outlet. Paedophiles do not have any legitimate outlets that don't cause harm.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Uhhh... have you heard the bear vs man argument going around? Many women believe being alone with any man is dangerous - that "logic" is already well established.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Wowza. You really missed the point of the man vs bear discourse.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My unpopular opinion is that pedophilia is a paraphilia and not necessarily a mental condition, even though some cases do manifest that way. But maybe I'm wrong. Please, go easy with the lynching.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago

True!

Pedophilia by itself is not considered to be a disorder starting with DSM-V/ICD-11.

However, if pedophilic thoughts cause distress or may lead to dangerous behaviors, it is seen as a pedophilic disorder, which remains in both medical classifications.

Should have made this point clear.

[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago

Thank you for this post. I think you've expressed your thoughts very well.

An additional benefit to a well thought out and nuanced post like this is being able to block people who don't think things through and wouldn't be able to grasp nuance even if it was slathered in Gorilla Glue.

[–] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Wow, this one got me. Top tier unpopular opinion.

You lay out pretty good points, mostly in terms of specificity.

And then you continue pointing out that there's likely no choice for a pedophile, and that they're not abusers until they abuse someone. And hey, I can get on board with that.

But man, if you really think that there shouldn't be a severe social stigma attached to pedophilia, then I really gotta disagree with you there. This should be something a person should only feel comfortable talking about with their doctor, close loved ones, or anonymously like you're doing here. There should be no stigma attached to getting help, but this isn't fun facts about yourself you should share with others.

If this is you, get help. And if you are getting help, I am honestly glad for you. But please don't ever think that anyone outside of professionals, loved ones, and other pedophiles is ever going to not have a visceral reaction to the revelation that you are attracted to kids. It is an appropriate defense mechanism meant to attempt to separate potential victims from their potential abusers.

[–] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I think you contradict yourself here. You say there should be a stigma about having these thoughts but then say people should get help and not be stigmatized for it.

If there is a stigmatization about it, then that is going to keep people from bringing it up and getting help due to fear of being attacked either physically, financially, or emotionally.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm not one, but yes, pedophiles should absolutely reach out for help if possible and if they need any. I'mma play it open - I had a close person of mine opening up to me, and I did my best to research before proceeding.

I think it should be treated like "wow, okay. Hope you know that abusing children is bad, and if so, I'm here with you".

It shouldn't be a fun fact, but it shouldn't be "you sicko pervert let me shoot you" kind of situation.

[–] Ok_imagination@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

If child molesters don't have sexual interests. Why do they molest children? If they don't have pedophilic interests why would they be more likely to cross the line? Sorry I'm just a bit confused.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 1 points 4 months ago

Rape is depressingly common during and after the invasion of a territory. You know what victims are overwhelmingly targeted? NOT the most vulnerable (children, elderly, prisoners, mentally ill), it's women. These sick freaks may get off on the power of the act, but don't pretend they don't have a preference. I think to truly stop this from happening we can't be reductive, we need to follow the science wherever it leads...

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Most commonly severe sexual deprivation multiplied by antisocial tendencies and the ease of abusing a minor vs an adult.

Also in violent cases, similarly to adult rape, a sense of power over the victim.

On the point of "more likely" - pedophiles are still more likely to be child abusers; it's 1-5% of male population responsible for 25-50% of child abuse. Statistics is fun.

[–] OlPatchy2Eyes@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

When I think about how many famous, powerful people have been outed as child molesters, it definitely seems to me that pedophilia is something that can develop within people. I don't think that pedophiles tend to become famous, nor do I think that the trend among powerful people is reflected in the general population.

From the wikipedia article

There are motives for child sexual abuse that are unrelated to pedophilia, such as stress, marital problems, the unavailability of an adult partner, general anti-social tendencies, high sex drive or alcohol use.

This seems crazy to me and I don't think any of it explains why so many powerful people actively seek to molest children. Treating pedophilia as a condition or as a quirk in one's sexuality seems dangerous to me. You can like petite people, you can do schoolgirl roleplay or whatever you want with a consenting adult. Don't even think about kids. That should be an immediate red light in anyone's brain.

Edit: nah I think OP's cooking actually, after thinking about it. If it helps pedophiles seek help then who am I to insist on calling child molesters pedophiles?

[–] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

But, it is an actual mental condition/mental illness/mental disorder. Just like what op said, there are, in fact, a lot of people that are attracted to kids that know it's wrong and don't act on those thoughts. They can not control having those thoughts in the same way that I can see a beautiful woman and am immediately attracted to them.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago

In some peoples' brains it's just not. Attraction works in a way that doesn't ask you for your stance.

And among wealthy and powerful, there are plenty of sociopaths who would abuse a child without being pedophilic per se. Also, if you check the age of their victims, this is most commonly post-puberty minors, and attraction to those is highly common in an adult population.

There is currently no evidence that pedophilia can be developed, except for the fact that there's an elevated percentage of pedophiles among people who have survived child sexual abuse as minors themselves.

[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nope. Pedophiles are child molesters. Something you want to tell us?

[–] bilb@lem.monster 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Child molesters are child molesters.

[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So are pedophiles, and hebephiles.

[–] bilb@lem.monster 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Except when they aren't. What don't you understand about this?

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Obviously the core concept.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

For many, pedophiles, or whatever other minor-philes are akin to Nazis or something else universally reviled.

There's no perceptive redemption or discussion.

For many, including me, that's fine.

Consent is mandatory, anything outside it is a done discussion. I understand the discussion on precrime, as related to non offending attraction, but for many the mere thoughts earn the end of tolerance.

As such, policing language to be tolerant of that group is a non starter.

Edit Do note I never called for lynchings or purges or minority report arrests. The law should cover all equally.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Because the current use of the word reinforces stigma around pedophilia and makes it less likely for people with pedophilic disorder to reach out for help for the fear they would be outed and treated the same as actual child abusers.

This is a semantic argument. Words change all the time; it's OK. It's especially common for clinical words to move into the pubic domain where they loose their clinical usefulness and even become pejorative. We just need a new word to describe the thing you're talking about.

There is no power in the spoken syllables or the written configuration of the word pedophile. Any other word will do just as well. Trying to prevent language shift is wrestling the tide.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago

There is an umbrella term for all people attracted to all ages of minors: minor-attracted person (MAP). This term was often used not only as a more clinically correct one, but also as a less stigmatized word.

As a result, this word got stigmatized too, because the underlying issue has not been solved.

[–] invisiblegorilla@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Seems the sort of thing a Pedo would say. Rapists should be neutered, especially anyone who raped a kid..

I don't believe in calling them map or whatever stupid term we are using to enable them.

[–] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I feel like you didn't even read what was said.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 2 points 3 months ago

Full disclosure: not a pedo, but know one.

The entire point of my argument is that pedophile doesn't have to abuse children; many don't, and we have to support them to make sure isolation and stigma don't lead to dangerous behavior.

There is therapy available for such people to not ever be dangers to kids, and that's the correct way to direct them.

[–] OlPatchy2Eyes@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

Certified lover-boy? Certified child molester WOP WOP WOP WOP WOP

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Pedophiles are bad people. Regardless of if they have 'offended' or not. I'm okay with chemically, or physically castrating them to help remove those urges, or putting them to death. I don't care about their feelings or if they're mixed up with child molesters.

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

This is a very basic view of the world.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Attraction is not a choice. If you believe it is, tell me when you chose to be attracted to whatever floats your boat.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

What I'm attracted to includes consent.

Being attracted to something that can't consent is not alike other attractions.

Edit downvotes from people who think consent is optional.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

The attraction is not defined by the consent of the other party. You would be attracted to the same people even if dating them would hurt them. You're just lucky not to, it never was a moral choice.

Now what is a moral choice is what you do with such attraction. And celibacy in relation to such potentially damaging attraction is the only moral option.

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

ignoring his BS (because he is full of shit), consent specifically IS attractive to some. I'm one of them. It's not a factor on its own, like how Tarantino might like feet, but he likes 'adult women feet', I like 'adult women consent'.

I had an ex who wanted to roleplay a rape fantasy. I actively couldn't do it. Her "no"s made me soft. Despite intellectually knowing it was a game.

So yes: consent can very much be a major point of attraction.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today -1 points 3 months ago

You conflate attraction to certain people with sexual preferences, although we don't have much control over either of them. For example, you cannot force yourself to be more assertive, sadistic, and dominant, and that's okay. Same way, some people, like your ex, cannot help but enjoy such power play.

But even still, those two are different. If tomorrow you'd figure out that any sexual interaction, even seemingly consensual, with adult women hurts them, would you immediately stop having any sexual fantasies towards women forever and ever? You may have guilt about it, but you'll still find yourself attracted, even if repulsed at the same time. You will absolutely learn not to sexually interact with women - I'm pretty sure of that - but the desire will remain.

This is exactly what it is.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The point is that variety of attraction is not ok. It is not like any other attractions

Edit it should not be normalized or accepted. It should be treated as a critical issue.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It should be treated like "you're not bad for having that, but you'll absolutely be bad if you act on it".

We should always highlight that attraction itself is natural and just happens, but what differentiates between it and other attractions is that you really really shouldn't pursue anything based on it.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

It should not be normalized like any other attraction. It should be treated as a critical illness

Edit seriously y'all are way to casual with this shit.

Edit edit

Being a pedo is not like being straight or gay or liking a particular hair style or something. It's a sickness no matter what semantic circles people want to run.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago

According to the modern, 11th, edition of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), curated by World Health Organization, as well as American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, modern 5th edition (DSM-5), pedophilia is not an illness.

Literally the medical world says it's not.

But, at the end of the day, it doesn't even matter much. The point is - pedophiles need support, not more stigma, to find help and live a good life without hurting anybody.

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I love how you entirely agree with everything OP wrote, but still want to argue anyway.

no-one is being casual.

no-one is talking about normalising anything.

it's always been said to be a sickness, which was the entire point of the post. it's a sickness.

sicknesses are not their fault. sicknesses should be treated. This is a discussion about a way to help deal with the sickness that also reduces children getting abused at the same time.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Right, which is why we seek non-punitive ways to help correct that attraction.

A thing doesn't not have to be universally equal to be similar to another.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Don't disagree with finding ways to help people. In this or my other comment I never said pedos aren't deserving of medical treatment

Edit but my point was that not all attractions are valid. Only consent based attractions are valid.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Pedophiles are people who randomly happen to have an interest in children. They can't do much about it; they can remove the sexual element (but not romantic one) by chemical castration, but most of them also experience attraction to adults, which will also get cut off.

In any case, this will feed into frustration, which may have other negative consequences.

Killing all pedophiles is not only inhumane, but also unfeasible, since you cannot separate them from others. And this won't remove the trait of pedophilia from the population; for all we know, the nature of pedophilia is not purely genetic.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago

It's also a self-defeating strategy. If it means paedophiles can't come forward to their therapist for fear of facing severe consequences, they...won't come forward. And won't get treatment to help them deal without causing harm. And will thus end up more likely to cause harm.