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.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.todayOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.todayOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              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.

              • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 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.