No, the Wintermute that I know, AFAIK, is not a med school graduate. :)
I agree that it’s complicated, and that nuance would be preferred. I’m not sure we can get that as long as the attraction itself–not actions–is treated like a moral issue. I don’t think that it’s even possible to have a serious discussion about the ramifications of issues of sexual attraction–again, not actions–without it being treated like a moral issue.
Just think! Maybe if we could talk about things like this seriously, without moralizing, we’d have fewer youth pastors that sexually assaulted kids, and fewer kids thinking that it was their fault that the youth pastor sexually assaulted them for five years.
Pedophilia is distinct as it’s pre-pubescent and isn’t a blanket term for children.
Yeah, but this–again–is one of those super culturally-loaded things. If you say something like, “Matt Goetz is an ephebophile, not a pedophile!”, people get furious as though you’re supporting his criminal sexual behaviour (and, in fairness, the people that are most likely to say shit like that are people that oppose age of consent laws because of muh freedums). People are more comfortable lumping any sexual contact with minors under the blanket term ‘pedophilia’.
I 100% agree that non-offending pedophiles (and hebephiles, et al.) should be able to seek psychological and psychiatric help without immediately being treated as though they had already committed a moral or criminal offense. If we want to prevent the from harming children, then we need to make sure that they’re as well-equipped as possible to avoid behaviours that put them at risk of committing offenses. But, again, too many people treat it like a moral issue rather than a risk-reduction issue. It’s deeply irrational.
Also, I’m not sure why someone keeps downvoting you for factual information.
deleted by creator
No, the Wintermute that I know, AFAIK, is not a med school graduate. :)
I agree that it’s complicated, and that nuance would be preferred. I’m not sure we can get that as long as the attraction itself–not actions–is treated like a moral issue. I don’t think that it’s even possible to have a serious discussion about the ramifications of issues of sexual attraction–again, not actions–without it being treated like a moral issue.
Just think! Maybe if we could talk about things like this seriously, without moralizing, we’d have fewer youth pastors that sexually assaulted kids, and fewer kids thinking that it was their fault that the youth pastor sexually assaulted them for five years.
deleted by creator
Yeah, but this–again–is one of those super culturally-loaded things. If you say something like, “Matt Goetz is an ephebophile, not a pedophile!”, people get furious as though you’re supporting his criminal sexual behaviour (and, in fairness, the people that are most likely to say shit like that are people that oppose age of consent laws because of muh freedums). People are more comfortable lumping any sexual contact with minors under the blanket term ‘pedophilia’.
I 100% agree that non-offending pedophiles (and hebephiles, et al.) should be able to seek psychological and psychiatric help without immediately being treated as though they had already committed a moral or criminal offense. If we want to prevent the from harming children, then we need to make sure that they’re as well-equipped as possible to avoid behaviours that put them at risk of committing offenses. But, again, too many people treat it like a moral issue rather than a risk-reduction issue. It’s deeply irrational.
Also, I’m not sure why someone keeps downvoting you for factual information.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod