Deep Thoughts: Where do I draw the line with pedophiles?

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Where do I draw the line with pedophiles?

I’ve had a few emails and comments about my over use of the term pedophile when describing pastors and priests who abuse children. I can see the point they make. Broad use of the term devalues its meaning. Going forward I plan to use it for any member of the clergy who molests a child below the age of 16. To be clear, that would be children 15 and below. Is there any feedback?

Technorati Tags: Clergy Sexual Abuse

Comments (7)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

0 Vote up Vote down

mikespeir · 758 weeks ago

Because the law can be different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction there's no definition that will make everybody happy. But the one you've chosen will probably come as close as it's reasonably possible to get.

Report

0 Vote up Vote down

@ChurchedAtheist · 758 weeks ago

The distinction as I understand and use is:
Hebephile: attraction to pubescent children (typically 11-14)
Ephebophile: attraction to post-pubescent children (typically 15-18)
Pedophile: attraction to pre-pubescent children (typically 0-10)

Report

+1 Vote up Vote down

jenl1625 25p · 758 weeks ago

I'd agree with limiting pedophile to younger children - the age 10 listed above sounds pretty reasonable. One reason is that while a 14 or 15 year old is simply too young to be taken advantage of by some adult, that 14 or 15 year old probably doesn't look or act like a child (obviously, some kids come across older and some come across younger).

Report

0 Vote up Vote down

mikespeir · 758 weeks ago

I'd say that in the vernacular a "pedophile" is someone who seeks sex with a legally underage person. No, that may not be the way that, say, a psychologist defines the word, but I thought the point here was to "out" religious authority figures who have been caught in illegalities. Using technical precision in the context of this blog might be nearly impossible in some cases. Maybe it would be better to avoid any such term unless you're sure of the facts. (You could even get yourself in legal hot water if you messed up.) Just say something like, "Pastor Jones is accused of having sex with an under-aged minor."

Report

0 Vote up Vote down

tonjia · 758 weeks ago

Personally, I like your definition. I think it is appropriate.

Report

0 Vote up Vote down

JWP · 758 weeks ago

Mojoey,
Thanks for addressing this. I would urge you to adopt a 13 or younger limitation for "pedophile." This is how Wikipedia terms it.

The term should apply to people attracted to pre-pubescent or pubescent children. Although it is wrong to engage in that kind of contact with someone underage, you are talking about what is "attractive" to these sick folks.

There's nothing wrong with being attracted to a matured person, there is something wrong with being physically attracted to someone who hasn't physically matured. Its this essence of "something wrong" that you need to exclude to the people attracted to the wrong age/maturity nexus.

As an aside, when I was 17 I was dating a 14-year-old. I was still attracted to her for the 3 months that I was 18 and she was still 14, and by your definition, that would've made me a pedophile, so I certainly have to protest.

Report

1 reply · active 754 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down