Well- I suppose this is a good example of why a better word might be needed.
PEDO-philia for those not familiar with the meaning or who don’t actually know- is an attraction to children. More specifically since we often consider anyone below legal age of majority a “child,” pre pubescent children.
Hebephilia is attraction to early adolescents, and for example a Ephebophilia is the attraction to later adolescents like those around 15-18 years old.
So technically not ALL people with attraction to or who engage in acts of a sexual nature with those under the age of consent are “pedophiles” or have “pedophilia.” The term “child molester” used to be used but it can be odd or offensive to refer to someone like a high schooler as a “child” and the term “child molester” implies young children are the intended victims of the person. More over- “molester” is one who molests or has molested and one can have attraction to without action towards, so molestation doesn’t necessarily apply to…
.. all the acts that could be inappropriate or illegal concerning a person below legal age of consent. The term “statutory rape”is probably familiar to many? Usually used ti describe when someone like a 20 or 40 etc. year old has sex with someone like a 16 or 17 year old or something like that. Statutory is a qualifier and rape is the crime. The distinction is that in a case of statutory rape, the rape victim has “consented” and may not even be upset now or ever about the act. It is rape because by Statute- law passed by legislative body- a person of that age may or may not be able to make an informed decision but is not legally recognized as being able to give consent in the eyes of the law- they couldn’t enter a binding contract such as to buy a home and they cannot consent legally to sex- so while they may have given consent- that consent is not considered in law and thusly legally it is sex without consent.
That term often doesn’t apply in the case of younger people and is…
.. not really construed so much in common use to apply as it has some implication that there is someone who has or reasonable would have some idea of The subject matter but is not legally able to consent as opposed to someone who could not or is not reasonably expected to have any level of understanding or experience in such matters.
There are other uses for the term but this is sort of abridged and focused to the topic at hand.
So we don’t have many of any widely used and accepted terms that accurately describe the general act of sex with a person below the age of consent except some version of that such as “sex with a minor.” In our society, sex with minors is rightly so considered a crime and deplorable; but it is double rightly so that sex with a 10 year old or such a young or younger child is considered particularly heinous compared to say sex with a 17 year old who may be physically mature and a year or even weeks or months from legal age of consent but is still a minor and..
.. should be protected but does have some capacity for understanding or experience.
So in common discussion, in media, and often in the case of court and legal documents that come up in trail and sentencing, using language that specifically denotes the severity and has an emotional or psychological association to how particularly and exceptionally heinous the crime is when younger children are involved is has a level of importance. We are influenced by language, calling something “constructive criticism” vs. “feedback” can change the course of a discussion even when the content and subject are the same. This is what those who have marketing degrees and such spend years studying and what many billions of dollars and far more important things than that ride on- the use of language to guide or influence perception of the same set of facts.
So it is inaccurate to call ANYONE whom has impulses or acts towards any person below the age of legal consent a “pedophile,” and it does perhaps arguably diminish the impact of the word some versus when it is used exclusively to refer to young children. I’m not advocating the use of the term this teacher used, but I do think there is a point of discussion in examining the use of language as it pertains to crimes of sex with minors and/or those of the age of consent who are deemed to lack the mental faculties to give informed consent. Accuracy in describing the crime or making the specifics of the crime known can be argued to have some value- but then again as a society or individuals we may not think that matters- one can take the view as described earlier that is is still horrible but perhaps slightly less so for an 18yo and a 17yo to have sex (an “adult” having sex with a “child” by legal age…) than an 18yo to have sex with an 8yo. Laws tend to observe this attitude, in many places
It is not a crime or decriminalized for a person below the age of consent (18 for the US in general..) to have sex with one over the age of 18 if the person under 18 is within a certain period of time from their 18th birthday- so it might in some places be legal for an 18yo or even a 40yo to have sex with a 17yo if they were say- 17 years and 10 months old. In other places the age difference between the two is the factor or one of the factors- so it might be legal for someone who is 18 years and 4 months old to have sex with someone who is 16 years and 9 months old but not legal for someone who is 19 years and 7 months old to have sex with someone who is 17 years and 1 month old. Or they may need to both be within an age range of each other such as no more than 12 months apart AND the underage person may need to be within X months of their birthday at which they reach the age of consent. Other places may allow for underage marriages- some US places have or still have allowed 16yo to
get married for example- usually with certain conditions. Parental consent or emancipated minor status are two common ones and then there are often other criteria such as above where they might allow a 16yo and 18yo to wed but not a 16yo to wed a 32yo. As we approach the age of consent things can get uncomfortable- undeniably the human brain develops more rapidly over shorter periods at younger ages, and undeniably a single year is a much larger percentage of total life experience at a younger age than at a much older age. So that single year from 17 to 18 or 18 to 19 can make a drastic difference in the experiences and outlooks and even the physical development of a person compared to the changes one is likely to experience between 30 to 31 or 60 to 61. That said- one day you are a legal minor, then the clock hits 12am on your birthday and you’re an adult legally. So what was a crime or what was banned to you like joining the military or signing a loan because you were considered too
young to make that decision and be bound to the lasting consequences- is available and binding. It’s a very sudden and stark transition. So that goes to this uncomfortable place where arguments exist to say what is the difference of a day or a week or a month? Minors can be tried as adults and courts have upheld contracts signed by minors near the age of consent but not there at the time of signing. As stated earlier there are also laws or exceptions in precedent as well as legal discretion for a judge in rendering verdict or sentence to determine if a situation is “close enough to count as ok…”
So that’s one side of the coin and the other is simply that it doesn’t matter. A kid is a kid until they hit the legal age of consent and there are no differences or exceptions between being 17 years 11 months and 14 days old and being 5 years old in the eyes of morality. I’m not advocating either moral stance here just presenting them.
So that is part of that discussion- does it diminish the impact of a word if we use the same word to describe an 18yo and a 17year 11 month 14 day old as a 56 yo and a 2yo; or does it just accurately express that in the social and by extension judicial view that both acts are equally reprehensible?
It’s an uncomfortable topic because it’s such a disgusting act and exploring where we draw the lines and why can mean a level of pragmatism and depth of consideration that offends the sensibilities. My natural instinct when confronted by the concept of an adult having any sort of sexual activity or predilection towards children; or any person forcing themselves sexually or sexually violating another is to line them up and shoot them- or not- because shooting is too quick and doesn’t hurt enough. Of course my logical mind defaults to due process and other issues of higher ethics and order, but my knee jerk reaction is revulsion and complete offense and anger.
So I totally get that this subject is.. uncomfortable. It should be. I’m not going to argue it should ever be comfortable. I’d like it to be a subject that never needed talked about or considered, a subject that didn’t even exist because such sickness didn’t exist and never would. Sadly that isn’t the case. So it needs to be uncomfortable because it is disgusting and should never be anything but disgusting. That said because it is so disgusting it is something that we must consider and talk about because of the critical importance that we deal with it and do so in a manner that best mitigates harm to those at risk while preserving those fundamental aspects of a higher system of order and morality.
I hope that this incident creates an opportunity for discussion.
As an addendum the term “minor attracted person” isn’t one of advocate I don’t think. On consideration- not only could the term be construed as “softening” the condition or acts- which benefits the predator and not the minor in society and perception, the term is also inaccurate or overly precise.
For example- many men could be called “Scarlet Johansen attracted individuals.”
Being attracted to Ms. Johansen doesn’t mean that those men have ever engaged in acts or conversations of a sexual nature with or towards her. It doesn’t even necessarily imply that they would approach Miss Johansen or proposition her or even take her up on a proposition were she to offer- as they might for various reasons such as other relationships or lack of initiative etc. never do such a thing. One whom is attracted to Scarlett Johansen may not look at explicit or sexual material of her etc. so compared to the term “pedophile” the term “minor attracted person” doesn’t encompass the condition. More over-
A “minor” is anyone whom is under the far on consent/legal adulthood. As previously stated, a pedophile is attracted to a group of minors but by definition isn’t attracted to all minors as those minors aged beyond the early years of childhood whom fit the definition of pedophilia are still minors but not generally or inherently of interest to someone matching the clinical definition of a pedophile. So “minor attracted person” COULD apply to a wide range of people attracted to minors, but it doesn’t cover acts beyond attraction and it doesn’t cover the general act of sex or sexual conduct with minors where there may not be an attraction based on that status or the status may be unknown or unknowable in general. For example- and I said this was an uncomfortable topic- a person might appear older and seem older than they are. Can the average person tell on sight a 17yo from any random 18yo?
Are the behaviors so different? Can people not appear older than they are or pretend to be older than they are? So let us say that a person engages in sexual actions with a 16yo whom 99% of people based on looks and presentation would believe was 18 or older. Say that 16yo had presented themselves falsely as over 18 and had convincing falsified identification or documents to seemingly confirm this and/or were in a place such as an 18 or 21 and older restricted venue where one might expect that it could be assumed they were of legal age. So a crime has conceivably occurred. Wether local laws or a judge or jury or DA would pursue it or treat it as a crime is open- but the basic criteria under US law for a criminal act and under a society where such acts are deplored a moral infraction has been committed.
But then what do we call this person? If they were attracted to a person they believed was an adult and appeared to be of adult development they were not attracted to a minor in the sense that what they found attractive was an adult form or presence. They were attracted to a minor in the sense that they were attracted to a person who is in fact a legal minor. Legally or conceptually we may be able to classify that as an attraction to a minor but clinically or logically they wouldn’t meet the criteria to say they are attracted specifically to minors because they are minors or by the features of a minor. Of course- many men and women are attracted to adult partners who have characteristics common to younger people. Underdeveloped bodies are a point of attraction for many offenders but an adult woman who perhaps might look underdeveloped but has completed development or an adult man who doesn’t have the muscle and physical structure that appears obviously post pubescent and could be..
.. mistaken for such, lacks facial or body hair etc and other secondary sex characteristics which indicate one had completed maturing as an adult. Now obviously an adult mind is the thing that is of critical importance in this as a moral and legal issue- but when we use language like “attraction to…” we open these doors where we have to ask these icky questions.
An ex of mine used to say: “why do so many men want a woman with the butt of a 10yo boy?” When speaking on the subject of a predilection of men to women with small frames and a lack of “curves” defining their figure. That sounds rather harsh and sexist to say that a woman without “curves” looks like a child- but if we examine it free from politics and considerations of feelings and such- one of the defining characteristics of a minor or prepubescent/adolescent minor is a lack of the shapes and forms of a developed body.
While Australia’s supposed “small breast ban” is not correct- when considering wether to allow adult media of a sexual nature their board does consider wether
media is attempting to create a perception or imply that legally aged persons appearing in sexual material are underage. This is one example of where this is an actual consideration. The legal compulsion and moral offense of sexual activity towards minors comes from the exploitation of those unable to make informed decisions and ultimately unable to appropriately defend themselves against such exploitation or be aware they are being exploited.
So then… if an act takes place between adults wherein one or more adults appears to be, is presented as, is materially similar in appearance to, pretends to be or imitates, or is indistinguishable from a child- where enters the issue? We have an issue with it by and large. I sure do. It’s gross.
But why? There are people who have various genetic and other factors wherein they literally appear to be minors- their developments stops or doesn’t complete at all, often they are of extremely little height. One woman with such a condition spoke once on her life and lamented relationships. She said it was extremely hard to find someone who would consider her as a partner because she literally looks like a prepubescent child, but that any men who would consider her as a partner she is very leery of as they are men who would consider a relationship with someone who looks like a child. That sort of illustrates the point. She is an adult- there is nothing illegal or immoral in dating her or having relations or activity with her as an adult with the legal rights and mental capacity of a mature adult. But- she looks like a child. And what healthy minded adults could be intimate while looking at someone who looks like a child?
So then- the term “minor attracted person” is wholly inadequate for the task and is most certainly NOT a direct replacement of the term “pedophile.” While there are all sorts of twists and turns and uncomfortable pocket cases and such to consider when discussing the larger matter, it simply doesn’t work to use the term “minor attracted person” when referring to a pedophile. It simply is too vague and too “soft” in its perception linguistically to be used with any moral compass in describing a person with a sickness of this nature.
It is however interesting that if we apply the same thought process which makes society adverse to the idea of two adults having sex where one has traits or the appearance of a minor or otherwise presents themselves as a minor; if we apply that same lens to someone like a transsexual…
The general social attitude is not the same. A man who has sex with a person who appears female and is attracted to that female appearance but is biologically male and/or possesses male genitals will most often be considered as “gay.” But- much the same as the woman with the lanky soft jawed hairless boyfriend- we know he’s an adult and we know the transsexual here is a biological male- but is the woman attracted to her seemingly boyish Parker BECAUSE she likes the look of young boys? Is she a “pedophile”? Most would say no. Most would say having a woman with an AA cup and narrow hips and a short torso who is 5’ even isn’t a sign a man likes minors- even find that question offensive.
But… a man or woman who is attracted to another biological male or female because they appear to be of the opposite sex is considered homosexually inclined…?
That’s a tangent. I won’t get too deep there except to point out that discussions of sexuality in general can be uncomfortable as we explore them. As many know, our sexual preferences and things we look for in partners are often influenced by parents or care giver figures. What they provided or what we didn’t get from them, things like that. The creepy man looking for a woman “just like his mom” or the younger woman dating much older men because of her “daddy issues” and all these cliches- cliches we see and which often hold truth in society. So it can be said even beyond sexuality that when we start to REALLY dissect and analyze things about ourselves and our views things can get uncomfortable and gross very quickly.
This last part has just been an interesting asides. The overarching point was that linguistically this os incorrect or probably not something that should be supported, but the use of language in such matters is important and something we should consider and discuss.
PEDO-philia for those not familiar with the meaning or who don’t actually know- is an attraction to children. More specifically since we often consider anyone below legal age of majority a “child,” pre pubescent children.
Hebephilia is attraction to early adolescents, and for example a Ephebophilia is the attraction to later adolescents like those around 15-18 years old.
So technically not ALL people with attraction to or who engage in acts of a sexual nature with those under the age of consent are “pedophiles” or have “pedophilia.” The term “child molester” used to be used but it can be odd or offensive to refer to someone like a high schooler as a “child” and the term “child molester” implies young children are the intended victims of the person. More over- “molester” is one who molests or has molested and one can have attraction to without action towards, so molestation doesn’t necessarily apply to…
That term often doesn’t apply in the case of younger people and is…
There are other uses for the term but this is sort of abridged and focused to the topic at hand.
So we don’t have many of any widely used and accepted terms that accurately describe the general act of sex with a person below the age of consent except some version of that such as “sex with a minor.” In our society, sex with minors is rightly so considered a crime and deplorable; but it is double rightly so that sex with a 10 year old or such a young or younger child is considered particularly heinous compared to say sex with a 17 year old who may be physically mature and a year or even weeks or months from legal age of consent but is still a minor and..
So in common discussion, in media, and often in the case of court and legal documents that come up in trail and sentencing, using language that specifically denotes the severity and has an emotional or psychological association to how particularly and exceptionally heinous the crime is when younger children are involved is has a level of importance. We are influenced by language, calling something “constructive criticism” vs. “feedback” can change the course of a discussion even when the content and subject are the same. This is what those who have marketing degrees and such spend years studying and what many billions of dollars and far more important things than that ride on- the use of language to guide or influence perception of the same set of facts.
So that’s one side of the coin and the other is simply that it doesn’t matter. A kid is a kid until they hit the legal age of consent and there are no differences or exceptions between being 17 years 11 months and 14 days old and being 5 years old in the eyes of morality. I’m not advocating either moral stance here just presenting them.
It’s an uncomfortable topic because it’s such a disgusting act and exploring where we draw the lines and why can mean a level of pragmatism and depth of consideration that offends the sensibilities. My natural instinct when confronted by the concept of an adult having any sort of sexual activity or predilection towards children; or any person forcing themselves sexually or sexually violating another is to line them up and shoot them- or not- because shooting is too quick and doesn’t hurt enough. Of course my logical mind defaults to due process and other issues of higher ethics and order, but my knee jerk reaction is revulsion and complete offense and anger.
I hope that this incident creates an opportunity for discussion.
For example- many men could be called “Scarlet Johansen attracted individuals.”
Being attracted to Ms. Johansen doesn’t mean that those men have ever engaged in acts or conversations of a sexual nature with or towards her. It doesn’t even necessarily imply that they would approach Miss Johansen or proposition her or even take her up on a proposition were she to offer- as they might for various reasons such as other relationships or lack of initiative etc. never do such a thing. One whom is attracted to Scarlett Johansen may not look at explicit or sexual material of her etc. so compared to the term “pedophile” the term “minor attracted person” doesn’t encompass the condition. More over-
An ex of mine used to say: “why do so many men want a woman with the butt of a 10yo boy?” When speaking on the subject of a predilection of men to women with small frames and a lack of “curves” defining their figure. That sounds rather harsh and sexist to say that a woman without “curves” looks like a child- but if we examine it free from politics and considerations of feelings and such- one of the defining characteristics of a minor or prepubescent/adolescent minor is a lack of the shapes and forms of a developed body.
media is attempting to create a perception or imply that legally aged persons appearing in sexual material are underage. This is one example of where this is an actual consideration. The legal compulsion and moral offense of sexual activity towards minors comes from the exploitation of those unable to make informed decisions and ultimately unable to appropriately defend themselves against such exploitation or be aware they are being exploited.
So then… if an act takes place between adults wherein one or more adults appears to be, is presented as, is materially similar in appearance to, pretends to be or imitates, or is indistinguishable from a child- where enters the issue? We have an issue with it by and large. I sure do. It’s gross.
It is however interesting that if we apply the same thought process which makes society adverse to the idea of two adults having sex where one has traits or the appearance of a minor or otherwise presents themselves as a minor; if we apply that same lens to someone like a transsexual…
But… a man or woman who is attracted to another biological male or female because they appear to be of the opposite sex is considered homosexually inclined…?
"I won't get too deep there..."