Clayboy (![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} clayboy) wrote,@ 2007-04-17 20:14:00 |
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watch out for the child pedophilia epidemic!
Ever since Alberto Gonzales said "we are at war against child predators and child pedophiles who prey on children on the Internet", it has occurred to me that the lines between "pedophile" and "molester" are becoming completely obscure, to the point that meaningful reasoning becomes hard.
Today I read an article by the published psychiatrist Herbert Wagemaker called "What is Pedophilia and why are child pedophiles such an epidemic?". The piece is a mostly a thinly veiled attempt to instill parents with enough fear to pay for the site's services (so I suppose his last name is spot on), but he is a published psychiatrist, nonetheless. He starts by giving the clinical definition of pedophilia, and then immediately goes on to explain that sex offenders have many victims, and that child molesters are considered to have a disease. At no point is the transition from "pedophile" to "child molester" justified, explained, or even pointed out, despite the clinically correct opening. Why do the correct opening
if you're going to say crazy things like "Most pedophiles are multiple offenders and are involved with a number of kids"? He cannot possibly reconcile that with reality. And the term "child pedophile" is used throughout. The only explanation is that, as soon as he's done quoting the DSM-IV, he throws it out and starts using "pedophile" as if it meant "molester". And then it makes a weird kind of sense; "child pedophile" is another way of saying "child molester".
This is the way Gonzales used it, too. And countless others.
It seems very hard for people to comprehend that a person could be attracted to children in a sexual and emotional way without having sex with them. I guess they only have their own sex-crazed frame of reference, and they see us as they want to see us, not how we are.
And how are we? I am in my thirties and a virgin. You'd call me patehtic for that, because of your frame of reference that always seeks sex, sex, sex at any cost. I'd call me proud and dignified.
Well, I may be a pedophile, but at least I'm not a child pedophile.
Ever since Alberto Gonzales said "we are at war against child predators and child pedophiles who prey on children on the Internet", it has occurred to me that the lines between "pedophile" and "molester" are becoming completely obscure, to the point that meaningful reasoning becomes hard.
Today I read an article by the published psychiatrist Herbert Wagemaker called "What is Pedophilia and why are child pedophiles such an epidemic?". The piece is a mostly a thinly veiled attempt to instill parents with enough fear to pay for the site's services (so I suppose his last name is spot on), but he is a published psychiatrist, nonetheless. He starts by giving the clinical definition of pedophilia, and then immediately goes on to explain that sex offenders have many victims, and that child molesters are considered to have a disease. At no point is the transition from "pedophile" to "child molester" justified, explained, or even pointed out, despite the clinically correct opening. Why do the correct opening
if you're going to say crazy things like "Most pedophiles are multiple offenders and are involved with a number of kids"? He cannot possibly reconcile that with reality. And the term "child pedophile" is used throughout. The only explanation is that, as soon as he's done quoting the DSM-IV, he throws it out and starts using "pedophile" as if it meant "molester". And then it makes a weird kind of sense; "child pedophile" is another way of saying "child molester".
This is the way Gonzales used it, too. And countless others.
It seems very hard for people to comprehend that a person could be attracted to children in a sexual and emotional way without having sex with them. I guess they only have their own sex-crazed frame of reference, and they see us as they want to see us, not how we are.
And how are we? I am in my thirties and a virgin. You'd call me patehtic for that, because of your frame of reference that always seeks sex, sex, sex at any cost. I'd call me proud and dignified.
Well, I may be a pedophile, but at least I'm not a child pedophile.
|
|