Submitted by lettuceLeafer in AskRaddle

Clarification I'm not saying its a wrong theory. I think it makes a lot of sense. Just with these types of issues one reason that dismisses all others is often not the case. Also I wonder if people want this to be the only reason people and pedos as it keeps the issue simple and not a difficult and kinda scary discussion. Also child molesters aren't the victim. I just think pedophilia is an important issue to understand as its very harmful but the current discussion on raddle seems to be so oversimplified to not be very helpful in understanding pedophilia and child molestation for countering it.

4

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AnarcheAmor wrote

I believe it comes from various interviews with sex offenders and anecdotes about men of authority where the common denominator is the vulnerability that young people have and the power those men have that enables their predation. However, non-offending people often show that having attractions to children is something that just happens as most non-offending do understand why they shouldn't have such attractions but can't seem to get rid of it.

8

TAA2000 wrote (edited )

I'd say, like most things there is multiple factors at play.

Before I get into anything, I want to say.

Rape is rape is rape.

Abuse of power dynamics can, and do, cause life long trauma.

Firstly I just want to point out that Pedophilia is my case point to why "born this way" is not a good argument. Like many sexual drives there is a pre-disposition some people have.
Further to this point comes in at where you draw the line of pedophilia. Hebephilia is recognised under DSM for "pubescent" children, as opposed to Pedophilia for younger.

Hebephilia falls in the range of genetically being possible to re-produce from a purely biological stand point. Hint - natural doesn't always mean good.
As such it would stand to reason, that a reasonably large percentage of the population could fall into finding attraction within this range, and in many societies, both historical and modern this is considered normal social behaviour.

Pedophilia being younger... Bunnies with pancakes

Okay... on to part two. None of part one matters for the argument of engagement in "Pedo" or "Hebe" behaviour. Consent is what matters, and consent cannot be provided in this situation. End of argument.

Neither nature or nurture matter.

We know better!

Should there be a way for people that have a pre-disposition to this seek help, yes, there should be more options for those that ask for help. But, there is a line drawn, it is marked clearly.

Is engaging in acts of pedophilia okay, No!

6

moonlune wrote (edited )

Is it possible to "cure" yourself, like talking to a therapist and stuff? I remember germany having ads for pedophiles to seek help, but IDK if they can do anything except help "controlling urges" (which shouldn't be a problem for most pedos as everyone except rapists control their sexual urges around other adults?).

5

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

maybe I wasn't clear I was more asking about the people who say that pedophilia isn't actually an attraction to children. Its a sexual attraction to vulnerable people ripe for being taken advantage of. I just wanted to see evidence of that claim bc I believe it has some validity.

3

TAA2000 wrote

Most of the evidence I can think of would argue the opposite of your argument.
I'm sure that there is definitely sickos out there that fit the case you describe, but why bother trying to argue a point wherein the majority of the evidence points to the opposite.

Upon thinking about this, I think such an argument as presented would be one of trying to redefine pedophilia to other them; but I didn't get that from how you phrased your question.
"I'm not a pedophile, pedophiles are bad people. I'm not a bad person, so I'm not a pedophile". There is some use in this, but such a linguistic distinction already exists between pedophile and child abuser. A pedophile is attracted to children, a child abuser, abuses children. However, this destinction is distorted by preconceptions.

If they are after support, there is some merit in having a description for their condition, without the stigma of pedophile, but I don't think trying to distance themselves from the word will be effective changing the social connotations.

However I don't think this argument is coming from those people, I think this is coming from those that want to say, "when I abuse children it is good, because I'm a good person".
Anarchism and Queer literature are riddled with these types.

To give them benefit of the doubt we can say the 1900s were a different time. We now have the stories of the victims of these types of relationships, to understand this theory better. Noone should be making the same argument.

One could argue that such relationships are still based on the lens of society, and the trauma would not occur under the right conditions.

Maybe such conditions can exist, but is it really worth risking such trauma, just for sex?

4

d4rk wrote (edited )

Honestly, it's more in line with Engel's critique of pederasty where we get the first concrete dismissal of the idea of pedophilia per se. There are some anarchists, contemporaries of Zerzan, Kaczynski and Bookchin that believe that if the argument is unfair to Homosexuals it too is unfair to Pedophiles, this idea is heavily dismissed by even the first Pride organizations in the 70s, in the 1990s this was cemented in the Pride Orgs statements against NAMBLA which was an organization centered around the same critique.

5

Quicksilver wrote

I suppose there are several reasons for the idea that it is a fetish for power and not merely sexual attraction if I am to think about it.

One reason could be the constant attempts for pedophiles to alighn themselves with the LGBT+ community as an oppressed sexual minority over the years has received such constant pushback from both the queer and straight community that trying to argue opposite labels you as a pedophile sympathiser if not an apologist. People don't like the idea that an attraction to children is the same mechanism as their own sexual attraction, whether it is or it isn't.

Another is that pedophiles who are child sex abusers are also de facto rapists, and rape is about the power dynamic and lack of consent (a simplification of rape Im sure but whatever). Whether they are pedophiles who aren't child sex abusers, are sex abusers, or non pedophiles who are child sex abusers, their relation and proximity to rape will predispose people to viewing them in similar lights.

I don't have evidence per se in terms of sources, but this is just my thinking of it after pondering what I've read/heard over the years. And I don't think it's necssarily either/or situation. For those that don't have sexual attraction to prepubescent minors but engage in child sexual abuse, I think the fetishization of power is a big, if not sole reason for it. Pedophiles themselves...I think they do genuinely experience sexual attraction to prebuscent children, though acting on it is still rape and sexual abuse, as a prepubescent child cannot consent, not have they even reached sexual maturity.

5

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

This is the typical more difficult discussion surrounding pedophilia.

2

halfway_prince wrote

Lettuce Leafer i'm so sorry all these replies have nothing to do with your question....i don't really have too much to add, but i just wanted to comment and i say i too am interested in the question of whether pedophilia is exclusively a power dynamic or whether it involves sexual attratction...

the only thing i'll throw is that A LOT of sexual interactions between consenting (and non-consenting) adults has a power dynamic involved, so i guess a possible answer is found in Oscar Wilde's quote:

"Everything in the world is about sex - except sex. Sex is about power."

Maybe all sexuality is inherently based in power dynamics? and that's fine? like consenting adults are free to play that game and enjoy it?

4

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Thank God someone actually understood what my question meant. I thought I was tripping or a bunch bc all the responses didn't make much sense to me. Thanks

4

Anarcat wrote

Simpler explanation is they're attracted to kids

3

Pononimous wrote

Do your research on every society on Earth, from the most primitive to the most advanced, and you'll discover that pedophilia and Ephibophilia (adult sexual attraction to individuals between the ages of 12-19) is universally despised and hated, especially by parents. These are perversions, degenerations and are symptomatic of very deeply seated and powerful mental illnesses and are not, in any way, normal 'sexual attractions or preferences'. This is why they are universally despised.

−2

Fool wrote

every society on Earth, from the most primitive to the most advanced, and you'll discover that pedophilia and Ephibophilia (adult sexual attraction to individuals between the ages of 12-19) is universally despised and hated

15 seconds of searching https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/age-of-consent-around-the-world.html

The legal age at which a person can agree to a sexual relationship in Nigeria is 11 years.

5

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

I don't understand how this is relevant. I didn't ask for proof that people don't like pedos

4

Anarcho_pedophile wrote

I'm an anarchist and a pedophile AMA

−3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Why r u a pedophile? Just curious not being antagonistic

3

crapshoot wrote (edited )

If you want to hear from an anarchist pedophile, I suggest Iris; I'm telling you right now, there's no rape apologia or fetishizing of rehabilitative justice, and they're a consistent anarchist in the sense of 'no hierarchy/domination'.

You seem like someone who'd at least read before you judge, if you choose to engage

2

[deleted] wrote

−1

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

But why would you want to have sex with a child when you could have sex with someone your age or at least an adult? Like for me there seems to be no benefits to having sex with a child. It just seems like a horrible experi nice that I can't see desirable.

2