Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- pedophilia [2026/03/26 11:09] – ultracomfy
+++ pedophilia [2026/03/28 00:22] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 People with pedophilia are generally, as a group, regarded to as suspicious and, in many cases, treated like sexual offenders regardless of whether they actually offend or not. They are seen with contempt and are fundamentally ostracized from society. Disparaging individuals with pedophilia or disparaging their sexual attraction is problematic because no amount of negative reinforcement will make pedophilia go away. Casting a group of people from society for something they aren't to blame for causes immense suffering. Worse yet, being a social outcast promotes developing antisocial personality traits. One of the, if not //the// principal indicator for whether a person engages in crime is whether they have antisocial personality traits such as impulsiveness and callousness. Evidence suggests that this is equally as true in pedophilia in the question about how likely individuals are to offend (see [[https://www.uottawa.ca/faculty-medicine/directory/dr-michael-seto|Dr. Michael Seto]] in [[https://psychwire.com/free-resources/q-and-a/nq86y2/the-psychology-of-pedophilia|Psychwire - The Psychology of Pedophilia]]).
-Almost all the worst criminals you've ever seen, serial killers, sexual abusers and the like, they all have in common the fact that they were socially isolated and had nothing but their own thoughts to live with. (Almost) Nobody who lives a regulated life with a job and friends and family just decides to go on a killing spree, and the same applies to individuals with pedophilia. The risk of someone offending is a thousand times higher if they have been rejected and shamed by society, have no support network and have nothing to lose. Telling people that they are the problem and that they are depraved causes suffering, makes their symptoms worse, breaks trust and makes them less likely to seek help. Seeking help requires trust in an individual and society at large. Broken trust makes it harder for an individual to seek therapy and open up to the therapist. And, broken trust makes it harder for the individual to trust society at large that, if they are able to control their pedophilia sufficiently, they will be accepted, allowed into society and treated well. As it stands, the stigma around pedophilia is so extreme that affected individuals have to expect to never be allowed into society.
+It is important not to shame or stigmatize people solely for having pedophilia. There is the argument that stigma is useful in discouraging offending, and that's why individuals with pedophilia should be stigmatized whether they offend or not. This is not correct, as stigmatizing everyone by default means that a potential offender will be stigmatized no matter what, which renders the stigmatization useless for deterrence. How will stigmatization deter a potential offender if they receive the stigmatization anyway? At this point they might as well not care.\\
+Read more about this: [[Pedophilia#Addendum: A response to City Journal  - Pedophilia Destigmatization|A response to City Journal  - Pedophilia Destigmatization]]
+Almost all the worst criminals you've ever seen, serial killers, sexual abusers and the like, they all have in common the fact that they were socially isolated and had nothing but their own thoughts to live with. (Almost) Nobody who lives a regulated life with a job and friends and family just decides to go on a killing spree, and the same applies to individuals with pedophilia. The risk of someone offending is a thousand times higher if they have been rejected and shamed by society, have no support network and have nothing to lose. Telling people that they are the problem and that they are depraved causes suffering, makes their symptoms worse, breaks trust and makes them less likely to seek help. Seeking help requires trust in an individual and society at large. Broken trust makes it harder for an individual to seek therapy and open up to the therapist. And, broken trust makes it harder for the individual to trust society at large that, if they are able to control their pedophilia sufficiently, they will be accepted, allowed into society and treated well. As it stands, the stigma around pedophilia is so extreme that affected individuals have to expect total social annihilation.
 ===== Child Pornography =====
@@ Line 58: / Line 61: @@
 Of course the question remains of whether it is worth the tradeoff. In my mind this is an easy question - if fictional child pornography prevents more offenses than it creates then it is worthwhile and should be legal.
-==== Addendum: Trying to find a legal definition of pedophilia ====
-++++ About trying to find a Legal Definition |
-While looking for a good legal definition for pedophilia I stumbled over the [[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pedophilia|Cornell's Law School's page on Pedophilia]]((Retrieved 20.03.2026)), which states "Pedophilia is a mental disorder where an individual seeks sexual gratification from children".
-I was happy with that definition at first because even though it leaves out individuals who experience attraction but do not act on it, only individuals who act on it are legally relevant for pedophilia-related crimes. I was also happy with the definition even though it uses the term "mental disorder". Invoking the term disorder really just points towards the DSM/ICD for clinical diagnostics, but that is fine for me since a medical screening would be done on offenders like that anyway.
+----
-The problem is twofold: For one, the page itself: Further down, the page notes "While pedophilia itself does not give rise to criminal liability, acting on it does". This is factually incorrect, as acting on it does not necessarily mean child sexual abuse, possession or consumption of pornographic material involving minors, or stalking and other threatening behaviors.
-Now, that alone wouldn't be a big problem, but the more I read into this, the more a "legal" definition did not make sense for pedophilia in the first place. Lawmakers define //crimes//, and child sexual abuse of any kind is defined at length in all its shapes and sizes. Of course law people can only point to medical definitions for pedophilia itself. For them, pedophilia is mostly irrelevant as they are more concerned with the harmful behaviors that pedophilia can cause.
-++++
-==== Addendum: A response to City Journal ====
+<WRAP box 100%>
-++++ A response to City Journal |
+===== Addendum: A response to City Journal  - Pedophilia Destigmatization =====
+Continuation of [[Pedophilia#Shame & Stigma]]
+++++ A response to City Journal - Pedophilia Destigmatization |
 When researching pedophilia and stigmatization I inevitably found [[https://www.city-journal.org/article/terrifying-nonsense|this]] article by the City Journal called "Terrifying Nonsense on Pedophilia - Professor Allyn Walker’s advocacy for “destigmatizing” pedophilia is simply crazy". I didn't know the "City Journal" at the time but it looked professional enough and seemed well written, so I gave it a read. And even though I disagree with its main point, I really liked what I read. The way it approaches Pedophilia Stigmatization and lays out its points is - albeit wrong in my opinion - still done very openly and very well. City Journal describes itself as a policy-first outlet, describing topics from a systemic viewpoint and analyzing solutions systemically as well.
@@ Line 78: / Line 76: @@
 So, the article talks about a professor - the aforementioned Professor Allyn Walker - who got placed on leave from his university. Professor Allyn Walker does research in the field of pedophilia and appeared in a podcast about that topic, in which he said that pedophilia should be destigmatized, as people have no control over their sexual attractions and that some people have these attractions without acting on them (the word "some" here is taken from the article, I actually do not know what share of people with pedophilia actually offend, there aren't any good numbers out there).
-The article says that Walker's previous work on the topic, including a book he released "A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity", reflects similar views but did not attract a virality quite like the interview. The interview did go viral and "led to Walker's firing", as the article says. I am not sure whether this is intentional or not, but in me - personally - this wording made me think that the interview itself was the problem, that the university kicked Walker out because of his claim that pedophilia should be destigmatized. However, it turns out that the university did not have a problem with that claim itself. City Journal's article itself links to a page from [[https://www.fire.org/news/joint-statement-old-dominion-and-professor-allyn-walker-signal-end-campus-controversy-walker|fire.org]] which describes his firing with a bit more detail: The interview led to a national outrage which prompted many to send antagonistic mail, including some threats of violence and the such. As the article says, "Old Dominion placed Walker on leave last week, citing 'threats and other unacceptable disruption' due to '[r]eactions' to Walker’s research". That Walker was placed on leave because of public outrage - rather than formal mistake on Walker's part - is also the primary concern of an [[https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Abbfcc969-5f0b-4fc4-8c70-677570b0b230#pageNum=1|open letter]], written and signed by some of the leading academics in the field of sexual abuse prevention. As they say, "we can appreciate the need for ODU to respond to concerns from the public and campus community. At the same time, the public backlash reflects a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of Walker’s research".
+The article says that Walker's previous work on the topic, including a book he released "A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity", reflects similar views but did not attract a virality quite like the interview. The interview did go viral and, as the article says, "led to Walker's firing". I am not sure whether this is intentional or not, but for me - personally - this wording made me think that the interview itself was the problem; that the university kicked Walker out because of his claim that pedophilia should be destigmatized.
+However, it turns out that the university did not have a problem with that claim itself. City Journal's article itself links to a page from [[https://www.fire.org/news/joint-statement-old-dominion-and-professor-allyn-walker-signal-end-campus-controversy-walker|fire.org]] which describes his firing with a bit more detail: The interview led to a national outrage which prompted many to send antagonistic mail, including some threats of violence and the such. As the article says, "Old Dominion placed Walker on leave last week, citing 'threats and other unacceptable disruption' due to '[r]eactions' to Walker’s research". That Walker was placed on leave because of public outrage - rather than formal mistake on Walker's part - is also the primary concern of an [[https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Abbfcc969-5f0b-4fc4-8c70-677570b0b230#pageNum=1|open letter]], written and signed by some of the leading academics in the field of sexual abuse prevention. As they say, "we can appreciate the need for ODU to respond to concerns from the public and campus community. At the same time, the public backlash reflects a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of Walker’s research".
 \\
 \\
@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 </WRAP>
-Well, no, City Journal, by definition pedophiles and sex offenders //are// entirely distinct groups. That statement is not obviously untrue and it is more likely to be "obviously true". //People with pedophilia// and //child sexual abuse// are linked, but they are not the same. City Journal's argument here would be that, according to them, a lot of pedophiles offend which, at least to some degree, makes (some) pedophiles and child sex abusers the same. However, what this leaves out is that human behavior is more than an offending rate statistic. Thinking of individuals with pedophilia as such is reductive and ignores that their behavior is malleable. The reason Walker says that these groups are different is because we, as a society, have all the necessary tools to shape the behavior of individuals with pedophilia, and pedophiles themselves have the agency to not offend if given proper support. The incentives are there, as I assume nobody would be more interested in not being a pedophile than pedophiles themselves. That makes these groups very distinct indeed.
+Well, no, City Journal, by definition pedophiles and sex offenders //are// entirely distinct groups. That statement is not obviously untrue and it is more likely to be "obviously true". //People with pedophilia// and //child sexual abuse// are linked, but they are not the same. City Journal's argument here would be that, according to them, a lot of pedophiles offend which, at least to some degree, makes (some) pedophiles and child sex abusers the same. However, what this leaves out is that human behavior is more than an offending rate statistic. Thinking of individuals with pedophilia as such is too reductive and ignores that their behavior is malleable. The reason Walker says that these groups are different is because we, as a society, have all the necessary tools to shape the behavior of individuals with pedophilia, and pedophiles themselves have the agency to not offend if given proper support. The incentives are there, and I assume nobody would be more interested in not being a pedophile than pedophiles themselves. That makes these groups very distinct indeed.
-The article then says that individuals with pedophilia are disproportionately highly represented among child sex abusers. I won't deny that, but I will pull that into question. Are they? Unfortunately I don't have the numbers on this, as good numbers on pedophilia are really difficult to come by. However, as usual it is parents and caregivers who top the charts on sexual abuse in any category, so with that and the other categories counted in I'm not sure how much room in % is left for pedophiles to fill the rest of the chart. Remember that sexual abuse is not typically committed with sexual gratification as the primary motive, as counterintuitive as that may seem((Keywords are: Power, control, anger and entitlement.)).
+The article then says that individuals with pedophilia are disproportionately highly represented among child sex abusers. I won't deny that, but I will pull that into question. Are they? Last time I checked, the exact prevalence of pedophilia offending was uncertain. However, as usual it is parents and caregivers who top the charts on sexual abuse in any category, so with that and the other categories counted in I'm not sure how much room in % is left for pedophiles to fill the rest of the chart. Remember that sexual abuse is not typically committed with sexual gratification as the primary motive, as counterintuitive as that may seem((Keywords are: Power, control, anger and entitlement.)).
 Before the article gets to the point that is central to its argument, it takes a swing at pedophilia strategization. In therapy individuals with pedophilia will be taught to become very aware of their desires and the kinds of behaviors their desires might encourage. This awareness helps them retain control, make rational decisions and identify problematic situations to strategize around them in the future. City Journal says "People who have to strategize to avoid sexually abusing children should alarm us". Hmm okay? This kind of strategization around problematic areas in life is standard practice in therapy and helps individuals manage their emotions/behavior in all kinds of settings, be it [[Personality Disorder|Personality Disorders]], [[Alcohol Abuse]] or any other field you could think of. And yes, the fact that they have to do that in the first place is certainly "alarming". But now what? If they said that it's alarming "and that's why we should stigmatize them" then we'd have a meaningful (albeit wrong) argument. If this was used to say anything at all, like even just "that's why they should be locked up" or "that's why we should help them" then the statement would have weight. As it stands, the statement is purely semantic and serves no purpose other than fearmongering.
@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 </WRAP>
-Here is the policy argument! Pedophilia stigmatizing is a worthwhile tradeoff because it reduces child sex abuse. The rest of the article goes through the motions of admitting that, obviously, you cannot really know, but then says that City Journal's guess is as good as Allyn Walker's guess and that, generally, by destigmatizing something you generally get more of it, much like we got more gay people when being gay became socially acceptable.
+Here is the policy argument! Pedophilia stigmatizing is a worthwhile tradeoff because it reduces child sex abuse. The rest of the article goes through the motions of admitting that, obviously, you cannot really know, but then says that City Journal's guess is as good as Allyn Walker's guess and that, generally, by destigmatizing something you generally get more of it, much like we got "more" gay people when being gay became socially acceptable.
+So, let's get a few things out of the way first. We in fact //can// fathom why someone would want to do it. Why? Because 1% to 2% of our population just is that way. They're born or developed that way and that's just a fact. There is nothing hard to fathom about that. They're attracted to prepubescent children and if you can fathom how we are attracted to adults of the opposite sex (or whatever adult thing in particular you are attracted to) as the way you were born/developed then you can understand how someone else might be born/developed differently. Individuals with pedophilia aren't black boxes any more than any of us are. This might sound nitpicky, but it's an important distinction, as this kind of non-understanding attitude drives the argument laid out by City Journal.
+Secondly, there's reasonably strong support from prevention research that people with these attractions are more likely to seek therapy, peer support, and self-regulation strategies when they don't expect total social annihilation. The claim that broad stigma reduces offending is much more speculative and hard to isolate causally; if anything, stigma tends to correlate with secrecy, isolation, and avoidance of treatment, which are known risk factors in other domains. So, this really should sit with anyone arguing stigma has net protective effects rather than harm.
+Most importantly though, the premise isn't logically sound. If the goal is to use stigmatization to discourage offending, then you shouldn't just stigmatize everyone indiscriminately. If someone with pedophilia will be stigmatized no matter what, where is the discouraging effect?
+City Journal says that by being understanding (or worse, //compassionate//) towards people with pedophilia we would be //less discouraging// of child molestation. I disagree with this connection. Individuals with pedophilia know that child molestation is wrong and blanket ostracizing everyone from society purely because they have pedophilia does not communicate the wrongness of child molestation any more than a good therapist, integration into society and - if all else fails - years in prison, ever will. The only thing such indiscriminate pedophile ostracization will achieve is creating an isolated group of individuals who are miserable, feel wronged by society, disillusioned and - being ostracized from society - will develop antisocial traits, which is one of the best established predictors for crime of **all** sorts. You can't expell someone from society and then expect them to be reverent about playing by society's rules.
+While I'm sure that such aggressive, indiscriminate negative reinforcement may deter //some//, I am absolutely convinced that making life miserable for anyone is much more likely to cause them to do things we would rather they did //not//. So yeah, for some the stigma will marginally reduce child sex abuse, but for most it will probably make the odds worse; not because I or Allyn Walker are making a wild guess, but because we //know// from adjacent fields how people left behind by society act.
 ++++
+</WRAP>
+<WRAP box 100%>
+===== Addendum: Trying to find a legal definition of pedophilia =====
+++++ About trying to find a Legal Definition |
+While looking for a good legal definition for pedophilia I stumbled over the [[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pedophilia|Cornell's Law School's page on Pedophilia]]((Retrieved 20.03.2026)), which states "Pedophilia is a mental disorder where an individual seeks sexual gratification from children".
+I was happy with that definition at first because even though it leaves out individuals who experience attraction but do not act on it, only individuals who act on it are legally relevant for pedophilia-related crimes. I was also happy with the definition even though it uses the term "mental disorder". Invoking the term disorder really just points towards the DSM/ICD for clinical diagnostics, but that is fine for me since a medical screening would be done on offenders like that anyway.
+The problem is twofold: For one, the page itself: Further down, the page notes "While pedophilia itself does not give rise to criminal liability, acting on it does". This is factually incorrect, as acting on it does not necessarily mean child sexual abuse, possession or consumption of pornographic material involving minors, or stalking and other threatening behaviors.
+Now, that alone wouldn't be a big problem, but the more I read into this, the more a "legal" definition did not make sense for pedophilia in the first place. Lawmakers define //crimes//, and child sexual abuse of any kind is defined at length in all its shapes and sizes. Of course law people can only point to medical definitions for pedophilia itself. For them, pedophilia is mostly irrelevant as they are more concerned with the harmful behaviors that pedophilia can cause.
+++++
+</WRAP>