This is one of those takes that’s so controversial I’m afraid to post it, which is exactly why I have to.

I neither endorse nor disavow this, and no, I’m not in the picture.

  • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    28 days ago

    Molesting a kid is molesting a kid, your motives don’t really change what happened. It is just as wrong regardless if it was out of convenience or premeditated. If you’re willing to molest a child, you are a pedophile.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      27 days ago

      Definitionally no, which we actually covered in some detail already here.

      If you want to judge just by actions, that’s fair, and that’s the current approach. You do leave some prevention on the table, though, and you still have the “what to do with them now” problem.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        26 days ago

        I think both denfitionally and opportunistic child molesters should be treated the same, probably with some kind of sentencing and therapy/rehabilitation. Regardless if it is fetish or not, just the fact they’d touch a kid makes their actions wrong. I also fear if we seperate them too much, normal pedophiles might be able to avoid sentencing/treatment by arguing they were oppourtunistic and vice versa, depending which group is set to face harsher punishments.

        Plus, the opportunistic ones may still have some kind of rape/molestation fantasies, which could be treated through similar processes as treating pedophiles.

        I just don’t see the value in making hard lines between the two groups when the actions they do are the same and carry the same harm, just the motives are different.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          25 days ago

          You continue to use “pedophile” as a synonym for “child molester,” which is an ableist slur. It is akin to using “schizophrenic” as a synonym for “axe murderer.” “Normal pedophiles” don’t have to avoid sentencing because they have done nothing wrong, nothing to harm anyone. You protest a hard line difference. The hard line difference is, pedophiles are not typically child molesters, and, at the risk of being tautological, opportunists who molest children are child molesters. If you would stop stigmatizing a psychological term, you would not run into situations where you get into arguments on the internet with people who fundamentally agree with you.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      If you’re willing to molest a child, you are a pedophile.

      “It would be ideologically incompatible for me to acknowledge that words have meaning and nuance. I must hate as hard as I can to prove that I don’t diddle children.”