On Pedophilia

Pages

So, because the internet is a horrible, horrible place of horrors and pain, I happened to come across an interesting article about... well, i'll let the article speak for itself.

After more than five months in protective custody at Cuyahoga County Jail, Distasio retains the ponytail and bushy red muttonchops seen in his mug shot. Sitting in a stark white visitation room while two law enforcement officers look on, Distasio talks freely about his past, distant and recent, and about the tormented lives he and his fellow pedophiles lead. He rocks back and forth as he talks, and his hands tremble when they are not clasped or resting on his knees.

He says he would never associate himself with Jesus, but his message is clear: He views himself as a self-sacrificial lamb. Getting caught, he says, was an intentional and necessary cost of his "secular ministry."

That cost could be spending the rest of his years in prison. He was found sane enough to be tried, waived the right to a speedy trial, and told his court-appointed lawyer that he wants to strike no bargains. In his mind, facing 26 life sentences gives him the chance to speak out for the pedophiles of the world, and for his idea of "sanctuary." His message: Pedophiles are people, too.

DISTASIO HAD WRITTEN to the Free Times in response to the story about how citizen journalists brought him to the attention of Rocky River police ("Neighborhood Monster," January 18). The handwritten letter offered glimpses of the fear and elaborately rationalized tangents of a person aware that his sexual desire is not simply illegal, but among the most heinous crimes conceivable "” and yet who believes that most pedophilia wouldn't really hurt anyone.

Distasio describes himself as a second-generation pedophile: at the age of 12, he began a relationship with an older man, a swimming instructor named Charlie, at a boys' club in Massachusetts. He says he's known about his proclivity since age 9.

"To me," he says, "it is as valid as any other sexual orientation."

He says children can give consent long before they turn 18 years of age. He says pedophiles can be abusive, but denies they are inherently so. He says in such a relationship, the adult's "trust" that the child won't tell the "secret" is a manifestation of love "” a vulnerability which, Distasio claims with conviction, puts the child in control.

The "secret" could dismantle a life with shame and violence. A life like Distasio's. Or like his roommate, Chris Nolan, who was found hanged by an extension cord in the Rocky River Reservation of the Metroparks. Or like any one of the nine other people Distasio says he has known who killed themselves or were murdered because of what they did or because someone might tell.

"I lose a friend a year to that sh*t," he sobs. "And it's all because the law gets involved. If you really want to do something about the sex offender problem and the drug problem, the first thing you need to do is give people a safe place to speak."

Control is a recurring theme for Distasio. He claims that since he began a year ago talking at open mics about the legalization of marijuana, everything "” except his roommate's suicide by hanging from an extension cord "” has gone according to plan. Even if the plan changed as he pushed it recklessly onward.

"My original idea was to devote myself to cannabis legalization so I could spend the rest of my life surrounded by pot- smoking grownups," he wrote in the letter. "And hopefully start to create a platform for pedos like myself to talk about their lives."

This leads me to another bit of stomach churning horror. I was trawling a LJ Random Image Generator, a usual form of fun for me, when I came across (NOTE: FOLLOWING LINKS ARE INCREDIBLY NSFW, AND PROBABLY NOT SAFE FOR YOUR COMPUTER SHOULD YOU EVER END UP MIXED UP WITH THE FBI. ITS BAD. VERY, VERY BAD.)

And that's why you don't link to them on GWJ. This is very border-line, Pred. - Certis

And I think the world's coming to an end. Or if not, it probably should.

God, my eyes, my poor eyes.

I wouldn't think anything that... word escapes me... would ever be posted... and then there it is. First I thought it was a family website or something, but... no, no it's not.

I gotta get Lynx or something.

My bad Certis. I knew it was edgy to begin with, but I won't take it there again. Again, my apologies.

I have to admit, I've never fully understood the attraction. I don't mean this to say, I'm all about some nice big breasts or pubic hair or anything like that. I mean, I've heard people suggest the "innocence" angle... but I don't buy that. Especially not today when kids are growing up so fast. It's relatively easy to find plenty of full grown people who are still totally naive and such about how the world works and cling to idealistic ideas. Hell, I'm probably one of those people.

Eh, to me, you can rationalize anything, so it doesn't surprise me that this guy is doing just that. But, getting himself thrown in prison seems like a rediculously stupid plan. I was under the impression that most convicts in prisons are strongly resistant, harassing, and even violent towards other inmates who are charged with crimes that involve pedophilia.

I was under the impression that most convicts in prisons are strongly resistant, harassing, and even violent towards other inmates who are charged with crimes that involve pedophilia.

Yup, and I hope this guy finds out the hard way what a sick bastard he is from his fellow inmates.

If this dude was smart, he would have gotten himself the surgery to turn himself into a good looking woman. Then people wouldn't mind if he was tapping into that pubescent boy scene (the jury is still out on whether it's something an ugly woman can get away with).

These people aren't sick. Sick implies there is a cure. No, they are evil, plain and simple. Pedophiles know exactly what they are doing and know that it is wrong. They destroy innocent lives. They need to be kept caged or be put down.

Yeah, Funk, that's where I thought this thread had started, but boy was I wrong... And boy, do I regret that mistake...

Oh, Predders, what have you done?!

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

They need to be kept caged or be put down.

Hmmm. Common ground with JMJ...who knew?

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

These people aren't sick. Sick implies there is a cure. No, they are evil, plain and simple. Pedophiles know exactly what they are doing and know that it is wrong. They destroy innocent lives. They need to be kept caged or be put down.

Actually it is a mental disorder and thus qualifies as sickness albeit not a physical one. Otherwise people with Alzheimers, Parkinson or more related schizophrenia wouldn't be sick by your definition either. They belong in a sanatory for the rest of their lifes, not in prison.

Edit: The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems lists Paedophilia under ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders

Pathological fire-setting is on that list too.

Actually it is a mental disorder and thus qualifies as sickness albeit not a physical one. Otherwise people with Alzheimers, Parkinson or more related schizophrenia wouldn't be sick by your definition either.

Actually, all of your other examples are physical, albeit they are constrained to the brain. Alzheimers and Parkinsons are brain degeneration and schizophrenia is a chemical imbalance. Pedophilia is behavioral. Rationalize it all you want, but raping a pre-pubescent child is evil.

I agree with JMJ and would like add the question: When did it become ok to remove personal responsibility from people who are capable of making rational decisions, but choose not to? When the medical profession started calling it a 'disease' and making money off of it?

Yeah, I think the inclination to pedophilia could well have to do with faulty wiring, but acting on that inclination requires a choice.

Err, the key distinction for me between diseases along the lines of Parkinson's and the "disease" of pedophilia is a person suffering Alzheimer's isn't going to have sex with a prepubescent kid because of their disease. Plus, the definition defines the disorder, not the acts. Having the disease doesn't force someone to act on any desires they may have, it just means they have them. Nor does the disease remove your moral compass... the "it's not my fault I didn't seek help" plea. That doesn't work so well for alcoholics in court for DUI charges, typically.

Relevant quote from said Wiki article:

Pedophilia is itself neither a crime nor a legal term. It does not describe an act, but a psychological state.

If you have sex with a prepubescent, chances are very good your government considers that you're commiting some form of child abuse. Having a really good reason for doing so does not, in my opinion, mean you shouldn't suffer the consequences of that act.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

Actually, all of your other examples are physical, albeit they are constrained to the brain. Alzheimers and Parkinsons are brain degeneration and schizophrenia is a chemical imbalance. Pedophilia is behavioral. Rationalize it all you want, but raping a pre-pubescent child is evil.

Actually, I refered to your definition of "sickness implies a cure", your words not mine. Also you mix up that an action is evil (raping the child) versus attributing the trait "evil" to a person, which either way is useless in medical or jurisdictial terms. It isn't a rationalization when you say that Paedophilia is a mental illness that needs lifelong treatment, which will happen behind bars if the sick people commited a crime.

Also Mixolyde, where did I say its okay to rape a child or where did I imply removing the personal responsibility when I said they belong in a sanatory for the remainder of their lives. Besides at some point it may very well happen that the illness can result in the loss of control for these people, which again does not excuse what they did, but explains it, which is the distinction I am making here.

chrisg wrote:

Also Mixolyde, where did I say its okay to rape a child or where did I imply removing the personal responsibility when I said they belong in a sanatory for the remainder of their lives. Besides at some point it may very well happen that the illness can result in the loss of control for these people, which again does not excuse what they did, but explains it, which is the distinction I am making here.

Sorry chrisg, I wasn't jumping on you in particular, just the general feeling I get from people that try to decriminalize these kinds of actions or shrug off the crime. Yes, these people need help if they can get it. But, if they still can't control their actions they should be locked up, asylum or jail, take your pick. Again, I don't think someone should be locked up for having these impulses, only for acting on them.

My original comment was more aimed at a general trend of society, gov't and the medical association to try to remove personal responsibility from people that claim they 'just couldn't help it.' A line needs to be intelligently and pragmatically drawn. I have a genuine NEED FOR SPEED! I don't think that should get me out of speeding tickets.

Haakon7 wrote:

Yeah, Funk, that's where I thought this thread had started, but boy was I wrong... And boy, do I regret that mistake...

Oh, Predders, what have you done?!
:)

Yeah, if you didn't see the links, you don't want to, you never want to, you'll sleep easier knowing you haven't. Seriously.

These people aren't sick. Sick implies there is a cure. No, they are evil, plain and simple. Pedophiles know exactly what they are doing and know that it is wrong. They destroy innocent lives. They need to be kept caged or be put down.

In the Bible, sin is sin. I deserve the gift of God's grace in the form of His Son's payment for my sin no more than this person. While some evils may have different consequenses, the penalty for all is death. (Rom. 3:23, 6:23) We all approach God from an even playing-field, undeserving. This man may make your skin crawl, but Christ still offers him forgiveness should he accept it.

If I came across a pedophile, I wouldn't punch them in the mouth (even though I would want to). Neither would I tell them what they've done is ok, or is just the way they were born, or any other excuse. Sick/evil/diseased, whatever you call it, they need to be kept far far away from children, and noone disagrees. Humans suffer from a disease to quantify everything.

Nomad - I agree completely. But just because I don't think I'm any better or more deserving of God's love than this man, doesn't mean I'm going to let him anywhere near kids.

Don't worry, I am not in favor of planting him in an elementary school playground either.

Nomad wrote:

While some evils may have different consequenses, the penalty for all is death. (Rom. 3:23, 6:23)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hang on there, Tex.

Did you just proclaim that the penalty for all sin is death? Really? DEATH? To be meted out by whom? You're not one of them Holy Avengers or something are you? If so, maybe we oughtta have a talk. In a public place. Or maybe on the phone. Cause that's kinda scary what you just said right there.

I can accept your argument that in the eyes of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, a pedophile is equal to one who covets his neighbor's wife. That's pretty basic New Testament scripture there. But the whole death thing ... Maybe we oughtta re-think that. Seems to run counter to the part about "forgiveness" and all.

Fletcher wrote:
Nomad wrote:

While some evils may have different consequenses, the penalty for all is death. (Rom. 3:23, 6:23)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hang on there, Tex.

Did you just proclaim that the penalty for all sin is death? Really? DEATH? To be meted out by whom? You're not one of them Holy Avengers or something are you? If so, maybe we oughtta have a talk. In a public place. Or maybe on the phone. Cause that's kinda scary what you just said right there.

I can accept your argument that in the eyes of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, a pedophile is equal to one who covets his neighbor's wife. That's pretty basic New Testament scripture there. But the whole death thing ... Maybe we oughtta re-think that. Seems to run counter to the part about "forgiveness" and all.

Pretty sure he means in the OT original sin way.

Which I still find amusing to this day.

In his defense, he did cite Romans, Fletch. Paul of Tarsus never struck me as one of the more cheerful of the apostles.

Pretty sure he means in the OT original sin way.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's it. Death of the spirit/soul kinda of thing. I'm pretty sure Nomad's not gonna come get you for your pre-gaming non-marital coitus.

The only pedophile I know about that I ever knew was a guy who was going to my church about eight years ago. He was a bit odd, but, well, so am I and a bunch of other people. He was odd because he collected stuffed animals, teddy bears in particular. And he was just shy of forty years old. That's rather odd, but not alarmingly so. He was a little socially awkward, but I had been too until I got to college and started developing more comfort around people (I grew up rather sheltered :)).

None of us knew he was a pedophile (and that he had been in prison once for it, I don't know exactly what the offense was) until after he turned himself in to the police to get him into a mental hospital because he was afraid he was going to molest one of the children at church because he couldn't make the urges go away.

That was really freaky and f*cked up. Really divided the church on it too. Half the people wanted nothing to do with him, the other half felt that the fact he turned himself in to stop himself before he did anything showed that he was penitent and deserved the support of the church in his struggle with his evil desires. Because like JMJ and Nomad, I believe that pedophilic desires are evil. Choosing not to act on them is what separates the evil people from the ones who are being tempted for whatever reason but not willing to go through with them.

We all get tempted to do bad stuff from time to time. Heck, how many guys here can honestly say that they don't find a pretty teenage girl to be attractive? The reason that most guys either brush that thought off or at least would never act on that attraction is because we know it's just not right, and we want no part of something vile like that.

Fletcher, the point Nomad is making is that of what a lot of Protestant denominations make: all sin is purely evil, and in God's eyes, sin is sin. Doesn't matter if it's a "mortal" sin or an "ok" sin (like, in today's age, all the people who pirate movies and games). "The wages of sin are death" means that, without true repentance, everyone who sins earns a spiritual death in the form of eternity in hell. Since we all sin, that's why we all have to ask forgiveness. I'm not writing this to judge us (heck, I'm a pretty lousy Christian these days...) or say you guys have to do it, I'm just saying that Nomad isn't an extremist: this is a common Christian belief.

Anyway, my point of this post was primarily about how creepy and scary this whole pedophilia thing is, and how sinister it can be. No one knew this guy was a pedophile, and it was a very strange experience after. I was on the side of those who believed he should still be accepted by the church community because of the fact that he recognized what he was being tempted to do, and had the strength to take the (embarassing) actions he did to stop himself and keep the children safe. I was surprised by how many of the parents felt this way, though they still acknowledged that he shouldn't be around the children unsupervised at any time (reasonably so).

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Pretty sure he means in the OT original sin way.

Which I still find amusing to this day.

Right. As do I. Problem is, the New Testament is supposed to supercede the Old. Hence, the bit about it being "new." Somebody who's been to church more recently than 1995 check me on this, but wasn't the point of the new covenant to erase that kind of crap and provide man with a way to redeem himself in God's eyes through the love of Jesus Christ, son of man?

My point is this: you can't have it both ways. If you're going to argue the morality of judgement from a "Jesus loves you, sinner" point of view, then you can't use quotes from the "God will destroy your village if you put your penis into a man's rectum" part of the bible.

Fletcher wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Pretty sure he means in the OT original sin way.

Which I still find amusing to this day.

Right. As do I. Problem is, the New Testament is supposed to supercede the Old. Hence, the bit about it being "new." Somebody who's been to church more recently than 1995 check me on this, but wasn't the point of the new covenant to erase that kind of crap and provide man with a way to redeem himself in God's eyes through the love of Jesus Christ, son of man?

My point is this: you can't have it both ways. If you're going to argue the morality of judgement from a "Jesus loves you, sinner" point of view, then you can't use quotes from the "God will destroy your village if you put your penis into a man's rectum" part of the bible.

Jesus said (and preached) that the Law remained the same, and that he was simply trying to help people reinterpret it. The "love" and "wrath" sections of the bible don't have to clash. We are supposed to love each other despite the fact that we sin. People didn't get that and were extremely dogmatic and critical, all of the "wrath" and none of the "love".

Anyway, it was Paul who made all the changes. Take that as you will.

I'll think on that. Carry on

Right. As do I. Problem is, the New Testament is supposed to supercede the Old. Hence, the bit about it being "new." Somebody who's been to church more recently than 1995 check me on this, but wasn't the point of the new covenant to erase that kind of crap and provide man with a way to redeem himself in God's eyes through the love of Jesus Christ, son of man?

My point is this: you can't have it both ways. If you're going to argue the morality of judgement from a "Jesus loves you, sinner" point of view, then you can't use quotes from the "God will destroy your village if you put your penis into a man's rectum" part of the bible.

Here are the original verses I was talking about.

Rom 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
(NAS)

Everyone has sinned

Rom 6:23a
23 For the wages of sin is death, (NAS)

Everyone who sins deserves death. Period.

Jesus loves sinners and consequences for homosexuality do actually co-exist. If there were no judgement for sin, why would Jesus have allowed Himself to be tortured to death 2000 years ago. One can't say that Jesus loves sinners, without recognizing the reality of sin.

Rom 6:23b
23 but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(NAS)

Forgivness is a GIFT. You can't earn it.

Anyway, it was Paul who made all the changes. Take that as you will.

Actually, Paul's writings were accepted by all Jesus' disciples and did not differ or contradict Christ's teachings in any way. Paul also was a gifted scholar of the Old Testament and his writings (like Hebrews) reflect that, showing how the Old Testament Law pointed to Christ as the last sacrificial lamb.

Nomad addressed most of what I was going to except for this:

Fletcher wrote:

Right. As do I. Problem is, the New Testament is supposed to supercede the Old. Hence, the bit about it being "new." Somebody who's been to church more recently than 1995 check me on this, but wasn't the point of the new covenant to erase that kind of crap and provide man with a way to redeem himself in God's eyes through the love of Jesus Christ, son of man?

The new covenant does not erase the old covenant, it simply fulfills it because, in light of Romans 3:23, no man can. Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (NIV)

Since it is not possible for any human to perfectly keep God's laws, Jesus Christ, the perfect, sinless Son of God fulfilled the law by taking the punishment upon Himself. Hebrews 9 & 10 go further into this.

Pages