All Articles

Pedophilia: When inspiring fear is more important than tolerance

Latest estimates show that up to 10% of men and 20% of women can recall a childhood sexual assault. It is a HUGE problem. For most that is a given but if you want to truly understand the gravity of the impact it has on an individual read firsthand accounts of the impact it had. Children inherently trust adults. It’s built into their nature and with that there is an expectation among adults that we will not betray that trust so freely given. An example would be that if we discover that a con artist has been scamming normal adults, we get angry, but if we discover that someone has been scamming the mentally disabled we are ready to grab our pitchforks and hit the streets. It appears that the more intelligence and consciousness one has the less sympathy we feel when they are betrayed. It’s an outrage, but we collectively think well they KNEW better.

Unlike most animals, humans have a long childhood in which they are heavily dependent on caring adults. It seems that our superior intellect and self-consciousness are the products of this period. This process is delicate and it’s impossible to overestimate the importance of handling your child’s development with sufficient care and mindfulness. In that child lies limitless potential. The stakes are HIGH.


Now we got to move onto the subject of those who abuse the trusting nature of children. It has been described by some that we have both child molesters and pedophiles. The difference being that a child molester molests and a pedophile wishes to molest, but may or may not do so. The author of the post referenced above makes the claim that to be considered a pedophile one must be primarily attracted to children. The claim is supported by webster, but not by the DSM-5. My take on that is that since the vast majority have ZERO sexual interest in children we can say that if there’s a little bit of poop in the brownie then it’s no good. We do not care to know what the poop to brownie ratio is.

I think we may twist ourselves into knots trying to determine why some people feel this desire, but it’s important to acknowledge that desires grow when they are fed. By studying frequent porn viewers we know that it causes profound effects on the brain.Much how we tend to expand busy freeways, it appears as though our neural pathways will adapt to make whatever pathway we commonly traverse more concretized and thus easier for the brain to handle in the future. This ties in well with an article I wrote earlier about co-causality which are loops that feed on themselves. It’s been found that you can’t pray the gay away, but in a few studies they found that while conversion therapy didn’t make gay men heterosexual, on some it made them asexual. Setting the gays aside, for pedophiles that would be a VAST improvement. But even if a pedophile cannot remove the desire, by not feeding it in any way you can make it a smaller piece of you.

‘Non offending’ pedophilia and other garbage ideas

There’s been a big push to normalize the attraction to children based on the argument that it’s best to bring these feelings out into the open so that they can be addressed healthily. The argument is that things are worse when kept in the dark. I believe that that works, but only for problems that have workable solutions. We can talk out issues and solve them, but since we have established that there’s no way to remove those impulses, for what purpose would we talk about these desires in a tolerant manner? It’s a tricky thing, because in some ways pedophiles are victims of these desires, but where does that sympathy lead? John Kiriakou observed in Doing time like a spy that chomos, or child molesters loved to plead for sympathy and did not shy away from describing their crimes. At first he would deal with these people with some mild deference, but upon questioning a friend who was a practicing psychologist he found out that they don’t do this to atone for their actions or as some form of therapy, they do this so that they can relive the experience.

Their plea for sympathy was a RUSE masking their desire to:

  1. Get sick pleasure from reliving the experience
  2. Make the listener more understanding so that the next time they molest a child it is more socially acceptable
  3. Alleviate guilt, but not in a reformative way. The alleviation of guilt they seek is designed so that they can justify future molestation in the future to themselves.

So when I hear all these justifications I don’t take their assertions at face value. Ideas are not compact discrete things. They have tendrils that branch out to other ideas. For example the idea that art has value isn’t simple at all. Underneath it is the assumption that we both have the same definition of both art and value which is highly unlikely, but it’s possible that our definitions are close enough that we can agree on the idea that art has value. This can be taken advantage of by people wishing to push a controversial agenda. I’ll give another example.

“Pedophilia should be tolerated”

How a pedophile views that statement and how a sympathizer may be completely. A pedophile may view the acceptance of that statement as acceptance of child molestation, whereas a sympathizer may just be thinking that they think it good that we don’t stone people to death for having bad sexual desires. I see this tactic being played out by many. It doesn’t even have to be a conscious act on their part. I don’t think that people employing this tactic are aware of it, but it just happens naturally because we tend to project our good intentions onto others. Mindfulness is the key here, make definitions clear or you may end up agreeing with something that you actually despise.

Here is an example where the “non offending” pedophile author I referenced earlier sees no issue with masturbating to images of children and also states that he isn’t worried about desire escalating. With sensitive issues like this, I think it wise to assume that whatever he has admitted to publicly is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s already been proven that porn use always leads to a desire for more and more exciting thrills. It’s the very nature of dopamine systems to escalate!

Should pedophilia advocates be allowed to speak.


I don’t believe they should be denied their first amendment rights for these reasons:

  1. They may self identify allowing us to know who we are dealing with
  2. We can keep an eye on them and get a pulse for how empowered they are feeling
  3. We can shut them down publicly

But along with this I believe that they should feel fear. I mean real terror running through their bones. If they ever even consider acting on their impulses, they should imagine a truly terrible picture of what their fate will be. They should assume that if they molest, they will be caught and die in the most brutal fashion. When someone lacks the moral capacity to do what is right from internal desire, fear of such consequences should grip them.