It's 3.03am and I'm staying up drinking hot Vimto and reading strangers blogs and I've just stumbled upon the blog of somebody who is in his words, 'a male survivor of childhood sexual abuse' and so, perhaps as a result of this abuse, was arguing that YES, every paedophile is a child molester.
Now, as a medical diagnosis, paedophilia is recognised as a 'psychiatric disorder' (note: not life choice) that is characterised by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Now, not everybody that is diagnosed with paedophilia sexually abuses children and not everybody that sexually abuses children meets the diagnostic criteria for paedophilia. Of course there is a huge overlap due to the very nature of the disorder and the fantasies typically associated with it but we must not forget the above.
The definition of child sexual abuse is that it is a form of abuse in which an adult uses a child for sexual stimulation and/or gratification. Forms include asking or pressurising a child to engage in sexual activities, indecently exposing them, using them to produce pornography and to engage physically in sexual contact with a child.
We must take a step back from the tabloid headlines here which highlight heinous crimes against children, thus demonising every single person who meets the criteria for paedophilia, regardless of whether or not they have actually committed any offence or caused any harm to anybody. I find this unfair. I am in no way justifying the terrible things that many paedophiles inflict on vulnerable children. I think that those people should be subjected to a lifelong imprisonment as there is absolutely no argument whatsoever to justify sexually abusing a child. However strong your desires, your morals must overcome them.
However, I do not necessarily think that every single person with these desires is an evil person. The fact of the matter is that paedophilia is a sexuality, and by that I mean a sexual preference towards a particular group of people. Obviously it is not one that should be acted upon, but it is also not something that the paedophile is choosing to suffer from. Some people may be born that way, being attracted to children alone and never adults, or for others it may be a result of some abuse which they themselves have suffered from or witnessed as a child. Freud made it very clear in his work that he was of the opinion that what happens to us as children can have a huge impact on our sexuality, desires and relationships with people.
So, paedophiles don't choose to be paedophiles. Then what? Well, the obvious answer is that they should deal with it by not abusing any children. And by not abusing any children, I don't just mean the physical act of abusing a child against it's will, but also that of grooming a young person into consenting to being in a relationship with them, consuming child pornography, everything. The whole spectrum. In my personal opinion, who a person is attracted to is their business as long as, and this is the crucial point, nobody comes to any harm. It's not as if we can stop it. This isn't A Clockwork Orange. We can't just electrocute people into being heterosexual adults.
Bestiality, though uncommon, is more than just a myth in society. Some people genuinely do fantasize about having sex with animals. But as long as they don't actually do it (and that includes refraining from buying pornography that contains animal porn), what business is it of anyones? Sure, those people have issues and could probably benefit from some counselling but is it seen as a problem or threat to society? I don't think so.
Other people have incestuous fantasies, engaging in role play where they call their partner 'daddy' or (and I've heard many a teen boy brag about this) watching two attractive twins engage in incest. Some people have fantasies about being raped, raping somebody else, harming somebody, being harmed (which is becoming evermore popular due to the glamorisation of BDSM in the 'Fifty Shades' trilogy). All sorts. Why is it okay to fantasize about raping somebody or harming somebody or even engaging in sexual relations with an animal but not a child? Either they are all perversions and should all be treated with the same level of contempt, or none of them are.
'But' I hear you say. 'BDSM is an act between consenting adults with safe words and no actual harm.' Yeah, it is, but BDSM stemmed from darker fantasies. (No, not all of it, I am aware that for some a pair of pink fluffy handcuffs is enough). I'm talking about the connotations behind BDSM. The control, the sadism and masochism that is in the very name. The 'derivation of pleasure as a result of inflicting pain'. Sounds a lot more sinister now, doesn't it? BDSM is like a Nicorette patch. It allows the adults to indulge the premise of their fantasies in a safe environment. Kind of like wanking off over a child but without anyone knowing about it.
Also, for a moment, if your narrow-mindedness will permit, step into a paedophile's shoes for a minute. Imagine how hard it must be, not only having to live with the feeling of desiring something you can never ever have, but also the feelings of guilt, shame and disgust that you're filled with for even feeling those things in the first place, not to mention the abuse that you yourself would be a victim of if you so much as voiced your desires to somebody. It's not an easy ride being born a paedophile. Not to harm a child is not like me or you simply not abusing a child. It takes willpower, self-sacrifice. I'm not saying they should be applauded for not inflicting pain on another person but I do think that it should at least be given a mention. It is at this point that I should probably mention the character of Humbert Humbert in Nabokov's 'Lolita'. At no point in this controversial novel is Humbert portrayed as a bad man. Sure, he has his faults, but it is not as a child abuser that he is portrayed. He is portrayed as a victim, somebody given an unfair hand in life, for whom every day is a struggle against the fantasies that he knows he shouldn't harbour. Of course, it's only a novel but it's an interesting concept isn't it? Paedophiles are human. Fancy that.
'Thought crime' is a crime in a fictional book (1984 - George Orwell) but it is also an unofficial crime in society. I'll let you in on a secret. There is no such thing. Technically, we have freedom of thought. We are free to believe the Queen is a giant lizard, we are free to be neo-Nazis, we are free to be homophobic, racist, sexist, whatever we want. As long as we don't voice our opinions or use them in any way that causes harm to anybody we can think what we want. If I want to fantasize about raping a pig and bathing in the blood of a million virgins, I can do it, just like I can fantasize about children. Sorry but that's the way it is. Thought crime is not a crime. Not every paedophile abuses children.
You wouldn't lock up a man for fantasizing about murder. I'm not saying that it isn't wrong to think about children in that way. What I am saying, is that it is wrong to hang a man for his thoughts. Let him choose whether to act on them or not before you condemn him.
