"The man doesn't have a legitimate disorder."

I like that this piece started with a call to properly characterize psychiatric disorders, and then concluded with a poorly informed layman's speculative diagnosis based exclusively on media reports.


this feels a lot like your piece on the pill that treats alcohol addiction - essentially, we exhibit a strong desire, even in 2019, to say that "Moral failings" (ie, sex and drugs) can be controlled by willpower, and willpower itself is THE measure of a decent person.

Can't lay off that crack? Bad person. Addicted to crack but stays sober? Good person.

It's the theory behind "emotional intelligence" when you give the kids a marshmallow but if they don't eat it right away they get two. We're big on willpower even as we learn more about how much of an illusion it is.


That research is not conclusive Katie, re people being born with paedophilia. A simple google search brought up lots of dissenting voices to this claim.
We know about brain elasticity, rewiring occurs thru out our life, and those brain images are done on adults.


A man who has sex ( aka Rapes) a child is a pedophile.
Wtf with this garbage lessening his culpability by diluting what he did.


Oh. Jesus Christ. Go fuck yourself Herzog, you worthless troll.


The glaring omission in this long article is that Trump was a good friend of Epstein's for years and they preyed on underage girls together. But by all means Herzog, feel free to focus on the really important part, which is the clinical distinction between pedophilia and ephebophelia.


When did Terfzog become a neckbeard?


@5 how is it diluting anything?
@8 What does Trump have to do with anything and why is the omission glaring? The article is about how failing to distinguish between one behavior and another lessens our ability to treat pedophilia and perhaps prevent pedophiles from acting out. Why would you be against that?

Are pedophiles, however they got there, simply disposable people? Should we throw them into the AIDS colony like they did in Cuba, or the leper colony like they did in Hawaii? What about a walled-in pedophile ghetto? Should be build a state apparatus to kill these people as quickly as possible, or simply lock them in an iron box forever?

Literally, what is your end game here?

@1 @2 @5 @6 @7 @8 @9: All of you seem to prefer and endgame in which more pedophiles rape more children. Only the erstwhile author of this piece is discussing things in a way that could reasonably lead to a reduction in victimization. But your desire to punish with your anger boners is blatantly stronger than your desire to not see people victimized. When your entire identity revolves around the powerless being victimized, you have to keep the pipeline stocked with new victims, or create them if it's running dry. Y'all should think about what you're really up to.

An FYI, the owner of Seattle's Only Newspaper, had his first gay sex at 15 with a man in his mid/late 20s if I recall correctly, Dan defends his right to make that choice and has nothing but fond memories of his first partner.

Another funny thing I noticed: Many Tweeters going out of their way to say "these weren't women, these were children!". That same day (last week some time), a black 14 year old was shot and killed, and the same far-left twitter activists we're saying "It's offensive to call him a child, he'd accomplished so much!". Have a principle, please.


Good Lord. Such hostility to scientific accuracy. Disregard the trolls Nathalie.


Another specious post from Herzog. Why bother? We already know what to expect from you by now.


Those are interesting distinctions between the 3 categories .. and .. I didn't know there are functional pedophiles who have never acted on their inclinations. What I've read - and I don't know if it's accurate - is that pedophiles (at least, those who wind up in the legal system because they do abuse children) are pretty much doomed to keep doing it. They don't know how to change them - or help them change. And what happens is they go back out into the community after they served their sentences - and they live in poorer neighborhoods, so poorer children are more likely their next victims. This is, of course, very unfair to poorer communities - so I have this feeling about "enlightened liberals" spouting about being generous to the poor pedophiles when they're generally more economically well-off and their children don't live in these areas. And ... I can certainly understand a parent under those circumstances taking the law into their own hands if a pedophile did something to their child.

So I have a lot of sympathy for people not wanting pedophiles living their neighborhood given the information about their likelihood of re-offending. Experiment with someone else's neighborhood. The child's right to play and live safely outweighs the pedophile's rights. That's why we have sex offender registries and public listings.

Once they're secured in the legal system, I don't believe in abusing or persecuting pedophiles within the criminal system but if this is true that they can't stop doing this, then they do have to be restricted in terms of where they can live in a community - and it shouldn't on the basis of class. So what I would support is some kind of supportive and gated living facility where they could come and go to some extent,but with oversight and supervision - and they would be area-restricted outside of a job, for example. And if we can't do that - well, they have to stay in jail, then. And unfortunately, they aren't. They let repeat offenders out, while they have all kinds of other people who don't belong in jail at all serving 20-30 year sentences for the most inane things.


Katie Herzog has finally caught up to a discussion that gross neckbeards have been having on 4chan for like 15 years. Not even on time with the low effort contrarianism.


Funny, but ‘Germansausage’ sounds like the user name of a pedophile.


From the article:

"Epstein appears to be a regular old abuser, not the victim of a psychiatric disorder sprung from his own brain."

Yes, Epstein has a fuckin psychiatric disorder. He has a paraphilia: Ephebophilia. His pathology for young teenage girls is so fuckin apparent, that He has a mile wide psychiatric disorder. He isn't a regular abuser, this guy was pathological.

This guy is probably label as the highest level of sex offender. He probably sexually assaulted hundreds of girls. He had Ephebophilia.

Epstein most likely has to be in therapy the rest of his life to deal with this mental health issue. He has a serious mental illness. How some of the rapes and sexual assaults were described, it was sickening, and Epstein did this again and again..

Epstein had Ephebophilia. It is a paraphilia like Pedophilia or Exhibitionism. It is pretty serious..


O, when I was 18 and my girlfriend was 15 when we first boinked, was/am I a pedophile? Even if she was drop dead gorgeous for any age? (mitigating factor?)


@19 Some womyn don’t like to be reminded that they don’t age well. Unless they’re Asian.


Huh, so we go from a sweeping dismissal of Aziz Ansari's Netflix special where he attempts to address the many complex issues surrounding what it means to be woke - to an uncharacteristically pedantic breakdown of the term pedophilia in regards to a monster like Epstein.

Ok, let's replace pedophile with 'Raper-of-13-year-old-girls'. How's that for a rose-colored translation?


@16 - it's pretty interesting the areas where extreme left and right meet, isn't it?


Katie is a great example of the third-class writer: they can’t hack it covering the intended consequences of societal activity, so they lazily present “unintended” consequences from their google search as “journalism.” Dan must be proud. Calling Epstein a pedophile does nothing to make pedophilia as a psychological disorder less problematic in our society, and it has no impact on his legal culpability - no prosecutor will let this case hinge on such a distinction.

Here’s hoping that “Edgy” Katie the troll finds another rock to crawl under.


Oh, the poor picked on, misunderstood pedophiles. Never mind that the brains of young people aren't fully mature until they are in their twenties, or the fact that kids under 18 are literally not legally or biologically competent to give consent to adults who wish to sexually prey on them. This is without doubt the worst junk article I've ever read in The Stranger.


I thought libs loved deep divining into the nuances of sexual perversions.


*deep diving


OH MY FUCKING GOD. Alrighty then. The pedantic liberal nuanced hot take missing-the-fucking-point wonkery has finally jumped the shark. My brain just exploded, and I'm like the guy that old AOL commercial that gets to the end of the internet. The only question that remains is if Katie is performing this cliche for the clicks or if she's for real, and either way, the answer is boring.


Your thesis suffers from an incorrect view of puberty, the onset of which occurs in girls as young as 9 or 10. Children that young can’t be passed off as simply “underage.”


If it is just too hard for anyone to call Epstein a pedophile for some bizarre reason, you can always go with one or more the following:

Child rapist
Pimp of child prostitutes
Child molestion enabler
Child molester
Kiddy diddler
Twisted fuck who rapes children
Serial rapist
Serial child rapist
Serial child rapist who has been protected for decades by powerful figures in media and government because pedophilia is so rampant among the international elite ruling class that if his blackmail tapes ever truly got out it would be a world changing event on par with WWII, and people have been trying to tell you this for years, but they get dismissed as crazy conspiracy theorists or suddenly suicide themselves or die in a mysterious plane/car crash.

How are those?


@28: Read it again. Katie was accurate:

"Obviously, the onset of puberty varies by individual, but it is the prepubescent element that distinguishes pedophila from other paraphilias, or aberrant sexual desires."


@29: Why is bizarre to use terms accurately? Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Jeffrey Epstein are hebephiles, not pedophiles. They like their fruit ripe, but still young. Unlike pedophiles, they're not attracted to unripened fruit (they like tits and bush).


@32: Because the types of people who would split hairs, police words, and get mad in a comment thread over whether or not a rape victim technically went through biological puberty before their rape are bizarre and deserve to be ridiculed and suspected.

Your comparing of child rape victims to fresh fruit just waiting to be plucked somehow makes it even more disgusting, and makes me more likely to assume the worst of you.

Simply put, if you don't have skin in the "raping and molesting children with impunity" game, I don't see why you would be so flustered over someone mislabeling a child rapist with possibly and slightly inaccurate legal term.


Good Morning Katie,
A fine article. Thanks for clearing up some details.

I recall reading "A Death in Venice" by German writer, Thomas Mann as a teen in HS. It's a novella published in 1912. The story centers around an early 50-something man and his obsession with the beauty of a pre-adolescent boy he sees in Venice. While I was too young to understand the subject matter (I don't recall really liking the book), I now regard the protagonist as a pedophile. Mind you, the adult character never speaks to let alone touches the boy. However, he is completely overwhelmed by the boy's allure. As I recall, it's largely a story about

It also can seem creepy. I think you nailed it. The main character, Gustav(?) never acts on his desire. Still, it is disconcerting to know that an adult is obsessively attracted to boys. I can appreciate the difficulty of an adult man "coming out".

Years ago right here in Seattle, I recall NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) caught a lot of hell for trying to "come out". I read about it in The Stranger. Clearly, this orientation remains fraught with peril.


@34: Oh please, you're the last one who should have the gall to claim such delicate sensibilities.

Go do some push ups.


@36: If you say so, but it is not about my or anyone's sensibilities, really. It is about creepy weirdos being creepy and weird.

I am not saying you can not be creepy and weird, but if you act creepy and weird, people may call it creepy and weird.


@13 so you're saying yes, you do prefer and endgame with more child victims? I'm not surprised.


@37: Is "Science and Engineering News" creepy and weird?

Fruit ripening, like human puberty, is a complicated affair: Hormones ignite an explosion of ripening biochemistry, the downstream physiological effects of which result in a mature seed's distribution. Thereafter, the fruit body begins its slow, post-ripening decline toward death, euphemistically called senescence in plant circles.

In addition, the analogy is found in our literature, poetry, and art. For examples, I'd start with the Renaissance. I'd love to take the time to provide links, but I have push ups to do.


@38 "without adding anything useful for anyone else"

That's the opposite of the thesis however - she's making the claim that by radically demonizing pedophilia by conflating them with "regular abusers", it makes it harder to get treatment. Can we agree that for existing pedophiles, being able to get treatment is better than not being able to get treatment?


@38: Ahh, I believe you're nailed the crux of the debate in the "opening up a space" observation. I understand that concern - but I don't think the distinction detracts significantly.


So now the burning question is--- how does Herzog's hair-splitting definition of "pedophilia" affect our concept of "age of consent." Anybody? Obviously, the Seattle Stranger supports lowering the age of consent when it comes to allowing children "access" to sex change drugs, a stance which organized pedophilia now uses to argue that younger and younger children should also be allowed to consent to having sex? And no one has an argument against that?!! Really? (If you do, what is it?)
In the meantime , it is hard not to notice how Seattle Stranger has been a constant sex-grooming tool for years, conditioning us all into normalizing explicit sex talk, in the same way predators use pornography to groom potential victims. ... I hate to admit it, but for the first time, I now see how the pedophile-warnings of yesterday's homophobes are being proven right.


@40: No, you are creepy and weird, news is not necessarily such.

I am aware that humans can use analogies between crops and people growing. However, what makes you creepy and weird is how you used it to describe child rape victims by comparing them to delicious fruits just waiting to be seized.

Stay away from children. Leave them out of your business.


@43: Hormones for gender dysphoria (at any age) has no relation whatsoever to this discussion.


@44: You're the one that's dwelling on it. Hmmmm.


@45 There was a reason Joe the Camel was banned from being advertised, which had EVERYTHING to do with the concept of "age of consent." The question that organized pedophilia is already on record as having asked, is that if children can consent to sex change drugs, "at any age" as you put it, then why are children not allowed to consent to having sex? And your response is that it "has no relation whatsoever to this discussion"? Oh really??

Oh, and by the way, the DSM is not based on any actual science. It is voted on by elite psychiatrists who sole job is to serve the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. But you'll never hear about that from the Seattle Stranger reporters like Katie Herzog.


@44, they’re using a botanical analogy to illustrate the nuances of human development. To call it creepy and weird, then to tell them to stay away from children, is reading too much evil into mere biological exposition, and making an ass of yourself at the same time. Chill out.

Katie’s article is primarily about language and the way we use it. Frequently, in cases of underage sexual relations, we may mistakenly call it “child rape”, even if it’s consensual sex between post-pubescent people, mutually enjoying themselves. What Katie’s article says to me, is that by using this term, or pedophilia, too loosely, you disempower and hurt those who have actually been subjected to child rape or pedophilia.

A horny 15 year old fucking some older guy consensually is just not the same thing as some genuine creep preying on a 7 year old. To call them both ‘child rape’ is not only inaccurate, but makes us all more prone to being triggered, getting emotional, and limiting our ability to partake in productive conversations that can help us elucidate the nuances of actual human behavior.

We need to use our language very carefully if we are seeking to get to the truth of the matter. And that is the goal of all this, yes? Or should we just keep slinging mud at each other?


@48: Obviously you don't know anyone who has transitioned. I do. I suggest more study and reflection before commenting further about transgenderism.


I agree with PZ:

"You knew it was coming, because it always does. A man rapes a child, and rather than focusing on the “rape” part of the crime, they fuss over the age of the child, and what specific category the man belongs to. All the focus gets put on the rapist rather than the rape, and the victim is reduced to some kind of perverted scale. The biggest jerk this time around is Katie Herzog, who splits hairs with the worst of them..."


Slamming Katie for writing this article is cowardly. Clearly deciding to be abusive, regarding this article is a way of distancing ones self and soothing ones own fears regarding this subject. Maybe it makes you feel like you are firmly on the right side for everyone to hear but at what cost.
She is quoting the views on this subject as they appear at this point in time, and clearly it is not going to be easy pill to swallow for many. But to read about Pedophilia and many other contentious subjects is difficult. To write an article, also must be difficult but someone has to do it.

She is just the messenger.
"Don't Kill the messanger"


@49: I don't care who you sling mud at, just stay away from children if you think there needs to be way more nuanced though behind the idea that raping children is wrong.

Why is leaving children out of sex so hard for some people? Just leave kids alone for fuck's sake.

Also, welcome to The Stranger, I see this is your very first comment. Must be a topic very close to your heart if you made a profile just to make this one comment about having sex with children.


Nobody is giving credence here to raping kids @Theodore. You're being preposterous.



Pedophiles are attracted to, literally, children. Epstein isn't attracted to children, he's attracted to biologically (but not mentally) mature girls. The difference between the two is a matter of kind and not degree. Epstein is an abuser - he uses his power and influence to force girls into sexual situations and relies on his network to evade consequences. Treatment for his attraction to 15 year olds won't make him any less of an abuser, the best case scenario is that he goes from abusing 15 year old girls to abusing 18 or 19 year old women or 49 and 50 year old women. Whatever relationship he's in, he's abusive, because that's his intention - to support his own ego by debasing and controlling people via sex.

Pedophiles, on the other hand, generally speaking have no intention of abusing their victims and, if you read Herzog's piece about them last year (I think), tend to display significant regret and shame that their desire is inherently damaging. When treated, these people go from having well-intentioned but massively damaging 'relationships' with 10 year olds (ie, sexually immature children) to well-intentioned relationships with more age appropriate people. So yes, lumping a Jeff Epstein in with pedophiles makes it significantly harder (IMO) for a pedophile to get treatment, because that word is defined by the actions of serial abusers. You remember how Reagan wouldn't fund HIV research because he felt you could only get AIDS by being a degenerate fag fucking and sucking random cocks in a bathhouse, and therefore it was a consequence of an immortal lifestyle that didn't deserve government response? This seems a lot like that.


This is one time that I’m glad that the law doesn’t give a fig for the nuances presented in this article.


Wow that’s a lot of words to defend a pedophile


53, by using your words irresponsibly, you inevitably obfuscate the reality of the situation. If you keep repeating child rape child rape child rape when something is not in fact child rape, you suck the power out of the words the next time it actually happens. It doesn’t sound like that what’s you want, so calm down.

By being so supposedly outraged continually, you do a major disservice to the children who are in fact raped and need help. You are playing fast and loose with extremely potent language, so please, do be careful. People are sensitive beings; you too, I imagine.

I decided to post for the first time today simply because I believe that the careful use of words and delicate leveraging of language are the only tools we have to dismantle actual evil. We need a more pure understanding of the nature of abuse, violence and darkness, and only sensitive observation and articulation can take us there.

I appreciate you taking the time to read this, hope you feel where I’m coming from.


It's true as the writer says "pedophile" has largely lost it's correct meaning and is widely used incorrectly to refer to people attracted to the pubescent rather than the prepubescent. However, the author of this article seems unaware there are more applicable terms that would apply to Epstein. He seems to have had a foot in two camps: hebephilia ( attraction to young pubescent people 11 to 14), and ephebophilia (attraction to mid to late adolescents 15 to 19). An important additional point the author seems to miss that would surely be more important than the ages Epstein's attracted to is he is alleged by numerous people of having forced sex upon them in some form, including physical (rather than just statutory) rape. The author apparently prefers avoiding use of the "r" word.


My last comment:

If the difference between "pedophile" and "ephebophile" or whatever doesn't matter, why does anyone have an issue with brining it up? No one gets out of line calling someone a "thief" instead of a "robber", because for all intents and purposes they mean the same thing.

Of course, people are uppity because the difference DOES matter. It's easier to demonize a pedophile, and by using "appropriate" words, folks are worried that it doesn't demonize someone hard enough FOR OTHERS. Since anyone invested in the argument knows (has an obligation to know) the facts of the case, it doesn't matter which words are used - all that matters is some some imaginary third person MIGHT misinterpret ephebophile as OK. Since that third party is imaginary, all that's really left is people who want to cling to their ability to freely demonize someone - which explains 99% of our social media today.


This author could get in front of the curve with a piece like "Necrophilia: the ultimate victimless 'crime'?".


@62 Charles Mudede already tackled that one:


@63 The expected outcome of individualistic, DIY morality. It will get even messier and uglier, until civilization is reestablished or the final cannibal holocaust (simmer down, you awesome flowers, just a movie reference).

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.