I feel the need to say this, so as to avoid confusion and people yelling at me. I don't agree with this piece, for a multitude of reasons. I just thought I'd share, because it's interesting and provocative, so please don't jump down my throat for being a pedophile apologist.
General preface: not jumping down your throat b_b, but I am going to jump down the throat of the author, who is an idiot. Statement of Bias: I've never been raped or molested, but my youngest cousin - whom I taught some of his first words - was. Had the perpetrator not already been in jail when I found this out, I'd have very brutally murdered him. My cousin was four years old. (Other bias: The perpetrator had attempted to kidnap me when I was an infant, so in ways I view it not only as an attack on a loved one, but the perpetrator "fixing" a failed attack on myself). My other bias is that I'm gay, and many male pedophiles target small boys. This is, to me, a direct attack on my identity. It forces society to condition "I'm gay" with the thought of "does this guy want to fuck kids?" So, because these people generally mean to harm children, and because I view it as an attack on myself and my identity, I am unreasonably unforgiving towards them. If you expect anything from this comment other than pure rage - some driven by pessimistic cynicism with little basis in reality-, skip it. Another factor is that so many similarities can be drawn between LGBT history and the items this article suggests. It puts me on the defensive for the same reasons I stated in the last paragraph. There are times when I'll be extremely hypocritical - but that's just how it works. Good thing my opinions below aren't shaping national rhetoric. --- Fuck Off. Not constructive, but that's what I think of this statement. That's great, I'll actually accept that Pedophilia is a status and a mental illness. We should definitely look into preventative measures. However, all of that is reliant on the pedophile recognizing all of these conditionals - that it's wrong, and everything that comes along with it. It's great that something like "Virtuous Pedophiles" (which sounds like an oxymoron to me) exists, but Preventative Medicine can't be used on someone not willing to come forward. I'd bet big money on these "Virtuous" pedophiles being in the extreme minority. I don't think it's because the word isn't out on the "hey, I can want to stick my dick in children AND not be a bad person!" bandwagon. Trying to "medicate" people before they've a) done anything or b) come forward and sought treatment is a violation of human rights that can't be allowed. I'd like to see this research. I'm aware that a rape victim orgasming doesn't mean they were sexually attracted to the rapist, but the rapist being hard does seem to indicate some sexual attraction. I find it very hard to believe that the people holding children down and fucking them don't get something sexual out of it. I have no trouble accepting that pedophilia isn't a choice. The urge which so often becomes an act is. The stated research here seems incredibly flimsy. I'm not a neuroscientist, so my opinion is basically irrelevant, but since this woman isn't either, and fails to cite her sources, I'm going to be extremely skeptical of this until I see research. Even with the research, it's very very conditional. For anyone curious, the author is Margo Kaplan, who is an Assistant Professor of Law at Rutgers focusing on "health law and policy and criminal law." Irrelevant. It takes one minute to leave an anonymous comment. I have to wonder, how many criminals in the past have gone to the far opposite to claim a problem, simply to cover themselves in the court room later? This is exactly how I felt when I was in the closet. One might think this would make me sympathetic, but it doesn't. To me, a pedophile is one who has or means to harm children. If those people contemplate suicide, they should stop contemplating and do it. I am, as one may surmise thus far, completely unsympathetic. I am, however, in favor of preventative measures and condition treatment. I don't buy that society has a debt or responsibility to people in general, or that pedophiles deserve special treatment because of a mental disorder. I buy that society has a debt and a responsibility to all children, and any measures that can be taken to protect them should be considered. Every human should be entitled to medical care. These laws were produced in 1990 and 1973. I'm surprised they don't exclude the LGBT community from discrimination as well. I understand this. My worry is that it would somehow be used to protect someone after they've committed a crime. As a "character" support - 'this person has taken preventative measures, and is simply a victim of his illenss' etc. But that's for a jury to deal with, and the law should very probably deal with pedophilia in a realistic way, if only to better protect the children at risk. (THINK OF THE CHILDREN! </sarcasm>) No shit, Sherlock. --- So, yeah. I feel like the title is misleading, since she goes out of her way to call the act a crime, and only conditions the attraction itself. Attraction isn't something that can be controlled, but I've never met a situation where choice wasn't involved. I'm all for preventative treatment and comprehensive efforts to remove or deal with these issues. The act, however, is an intolerable crime, and must always be treated as such. Edit: fixed formatting.Unfortunately, our laws are failing them and, consequently, ignoring opportunities to prevent child abuse.
It is not that these individuals are “inactive” or “nonpracticing” pedophiles, but rather that pedophilia is a status and not an act.
In fact, research shows, about half of all child molesters are not sexually attracted to their victims.
A second misconception is that pedophilia is a choice.
Recent research, while often limited to sex offenders — because of the stigma of pedophilia — suggests that the disorder may have neurological origins.
Men with pedophilia are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous, a finding that strongly suggests a neurological cause.
The Virtuous Pedophiles website is full of testimonials of people who vow never to touch a child and yet live in terror.
They must hide their disorder from everyone they know — or risk losing educational and job opportunities, and face the prospect of harassment and even violence. Many feel isolated; some contemplate suicide.
Our current law is inconsistent and irrational. For example, federal law and 20 states allow courts to issue a civil order committing a sex offender, particularly one with a diagnosis of pedophilia, to a mental health facility immediately after the completion of his sentence — under standards that are much more lax than for ordinary “civil commitment” for people with mental illness. And yet, when it comes to public policies that might help people with pedophilia to come forward and seek treatment before they offend, the law omits pedophilia from protection.
The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals with mental disabilities, in areas such as employment, education and medical care. Congress, however, explicitly excluded pedophilia from protection under these two crucial laws.
It’s time to revisit these categorical exclusions. Without legal protection, a pedophile cannot risk seeking treatment or disclosing his status to anyone for support. He could lose his job, and future job prospects, if he is seen at a group-therapy session, asks for a reasonable accommodation to take medication or see a psychiatrist, or requests a limit in his interaction with children. Isolating individuals from appropriate employment and treatment only increases their risk of committing a crime.
It stands to reason that a pedophile should not be hired as a grade-school teacher.