Dan is right that the adult women analogy is bullshit since they have agency and are able to respond appropriately in the way they wish, and the children cannot. A better analogy would be: "if I desired sex with passed out women should I refrain from staying the night in the same room as passed out women" or "if I desire raping women I can physically dominate should I refrain from being alone with women I can physically dominate"- in which case the answer is absolutely do not ever put yourself or those women in that position and stay away from any situation in which you could be. In short- if you are an ethical pedo, then no you cannot babysit your friends kids or be in a situation in which you are alone with kids. Period.

@1 But lots of people are into nonconsent porn but don't act on that in their real life. Lots of people are into the concept of sleeping with someone who is passed out but would never do that in real life. Perhaps its a matter of degree? How comfortable the person feels? Some people are alcoholics and pretty quickly are able to around alcohol and know its a bad thing for them. Other people never get to that level and have to avoid it their entire lives.

In most things in life, I think it's better to take a more individualized response - we get in trouble when we make blanket statements. If this person feels completely comfortable with their world and knows that there is no chance they will offend, then maybe baby-sitting isn't a bad idea (though Dan is right that friends likely won't understand if it comes out). I'd think finding a therapist you can confide in and working out game rules would be the best idea.

ground rules

"Can I keep babysitting my friends' kids when they need a hand?"
No.
"After all, if I were into adult women, people wouldn't see anything wrong with leaving me alone with a couple of those."
This makes me update my first answer to DEFINITELY not.

Something I wonder about, policy-wise, and have no answer for:

Are representations of child sex that are ethically produced (animation, sex bots, over-18's made up to look young, etc) good or bad? Does it mostly "scratch that itch" in a way that reduces the urge to sexually assault children? Or does it more normalize forbidden activities and tempt a virtuous pedophile to offend?

Emotionally, I want to say, "Ban it all!" (and that makes enforcement and interpretation by the courts much easier). But my understanding is that the availability of porn in general and perhaps snuff porn and rape porn in particular has an effect of reducing IRL offenses when and where it became available.

Of course the actual studies to answer that question would have to come from some western democracy that uses science to inform evidence-based policy and not the USA - just as we refuse to study gun violence, benefits of cannabis use, etc.

Another analogy for "I'm a pedophile. . . . Can I keep babysitting my friends' kids when they need a hand?"

I'm an alcoholic. Should I go to bars with my friends?

@2 - larrystone007: Absolutely not. And stay away from my kids — not because I'm afraid you're a pedophile, but because I don't want them to inadvertently pick up the habit of being terrible at straightforward cost-benefit analyses.

Hey, re-think that @6: The only person potentially hurt by the alcoholic is him/herself. I have several sober alcoholic friends who have accompanied me to bars, and they do just fine (and tend to be the designated driver).

@5 good question, and maybe something research could help determine. If research on this topic were something society could allow.

@5- we don't criminalize thoughts (yet). And we don't (usually) say you can't publish books on certain topics. The last thing we want is a court punishing someone for the wrong kind of cartoon.

Excellent column. It is far too common for people to focus on desire, and not action. Bill Cosby is a fucking asshole because he acted on a desire he knew was evil, not because he had that desire. He could have easily got counseling, and figured out how to avoid the problem. He probably could have found women that actually liked the kink (especially when it involved Bill Cosby). But instead he acted with no concern for the victims. Like so many people of my generation -- especially those raised in households with a multi-racial social upbringing -- he was a tremendous disappointment. Fuck him.

I wish that America could learn from his horrible actions, but instead we simply label him a freak. He had weird desires, and that was the problem. No, the problem was that he didn't deal with them properly. There are millions of Americans who are prone to violence. Every day they think of beating the shit out of their boss, or slapping someone who pisses them off. By and large, they avoid such outbursts, but once and a while, they snap, and someone gets hurt. Their failure -- our failure as a society -- is that we assume that the desire is the problem, and not the lack of constraint.

I know a man who's sexually attracted to children who deals with the desire by doing ageplay with adult women. This probably wouldn't work for every pedophile, but I mention it as an option to consider.

Good God, let these poor people live out their tortured lives without convicting them for thought crimes.

I'm not sure that a self-suppressing pedophile-by-inclination can babysit the kids of parents who don't know he's a pedophile. Probably I'd advise against it.

We all know there are countless child-lovers (one must hope, self-suppressing, 'virtuous') who work with children in schools, voluntary groups, the Scouts, after-schools games clubs, 'cadet forces' or militia, play D&D etc. I don't think this is wrong in itself; but there does seem to me something wrong in its being furtive--in pedos-by-inclination seeking out the company of children without its being understood, possibly tacitly, by their managers or supervisors that they present an offending risk and require especial oversight. The 'prep' schools I attended as a child had many pedo- and ephebophile 'masters' who (as far as I know) successfully sublimated their attraction to children in pastoral care and a desexualised concern for children's learning and maturation. There will be some abusers of this kind; but abusers do not draw heavily from this contingent, as far as I'm aware. Child abusers are fathers (of poor impulse control and often notably low IQ), other male relatives and trusted family friends.

I've said before I would more willingly walk behind the self-policing, 'virtuous' pedo delegation at a Pride than behind the often out-for-a-fight SWERFs / TERFs, and I'll repeat that.

This is a bit of a red herring question.

"Can pedophiles be productive in society?" - absolutely. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of people who 'are' pedophiles, have not offended, and are productive. But does that really matter?

The more germane question is, should we change how we think about pedophiles? What behaviors that non-pedos exhibit towards pedophiles should we change? I mean, sure, in prisons we can change the treatment regime; we can let pedophiles get more support than they're able to now... but like, are you going to stop being afraid if someone tells you they are a pedophile?

@8: good point. @11 had a better analogy. While there are increased risks to others from drunk driving and domestic violence, the alcoholic does not directly endanger others by drinking. And the alcoholic for whom being in a bar isn't a trigger to bad choices, it's fine. But for the alcoholic for whom that is a trigger. . .

@10: sometimes we criminalize thoughts. Counselors and therapists who are mandatory reporters could conclude they are required to report a client who reports sexual attraction to children (particularly if they were a teacher, babysitter, or in some other way had access and some authority over children). So reporting the thought to a professional could ruin their life.

@11: an interesting parallel - Bill Cosby. A sexual desire / kink that can't be ethically indulged in (except through consensual role-playing). I suspect for the pedophile, rape fantasist, sadist, etc; there is a spectrum and at the mild end of it role-playing with a consensual partner could suffice, while for others, it would only arouse them if the other person was truly a victim and had not consented. Some gay guys still and many more in past generations married woman and, I guess, thought of Douglas Fairbanks or a young Marlon Brando while doing it doggity style with the wife. They had a sexual desire that was stigmatized and criminalized (although could have done with a consenting adult) and they typically didn't disclose to their wife.

Good advice then as well as today. I would add that in addition to an online community LW could also look into a flesh and blood group in their area.
This group does not need to be exclusively for pedophiles. There are other groups that deal with sexuality and other behaviors where one can talk freely about their struggles and secret desires. Local networks can help one stay accountable when triggered, go to a movie on occasion, or find help in time of trouble.

Coryleah @ 13 ageplay roleplay is also a good suggestion, though as rightfully stated may not be suitable for everyone.

Looks like there were way more active commenters back in the day, well over 300 comments for the original letter.

M?? Harriet - Ah, for the days when my primary Pride concern was NAMBLA.

Bu at least you'd never have to worry about my being in your parade, or vice versa (not that I'm at all likely ever to be in one again). Additionally, in my area, I believe Pride has achieved its ultimate goal by outliving its usefulness and actually disbanded. I can see why some people miss it, but I call that real progress.

@16 - Sportlandia: I can't speak for all the small children who post comments on thestranger dot com, but I don't understand why an ostensible adult such as yourself would be afraid if someone told you they were a pedophile. Weirded out or upset or confused or angry, sure. But I don't think they're dangerous to adults?

And I would feel a lot better about the potential danger to my kids if every pedophile were upfront about it. Because then I would be very clear on who not to leave them alone with.

I don’t think the Bill Cosby analogy is the right one in our case. It seems more like a form of rape in which the victim’s resistance and memory are tempered with drugs.

Get some therapy LW, and stay away from any children if you are sexually attracted to them. You don’t have to touch a child for them to know something creepy is in the air.

Good pedos, Dan? Jesus. If someone is sexually attracted to children they need to seek help, and work out why.

@larry being into a certain type of porn or fantasy is not the same thing as having a real life attraction to a certain thing. People who are into non consent porn and fantasies are not usually into actually nonconsensual sex. They are into the fantasy of it and the role play of it. If they are into the porn (or role play or fantasy) because it's something they actually desire in real life (to rape someone really) then they should not put themselves into situations where they could do that- this is exactly my point so I'm not sure what you think you are going on about. It's not about a matter of degree or "some form of" or whatever. And while "most things" in life might be better served by individualized nuanced, not all things are. There is absolutely zero need for a pedophile to babysit their friends' children. I'd be more sympathetic to the virtuous pedo who is also a parent since they will have to figure out how to manage a relationship with their children in a way that is safe and health. But there is no reason for a pedophile to babysit friends' children. The children in question and the parents of those children all deserve to have their needs/risks considered as well. This is probably as good an example of a situation that requires no individualized consideration and just a blanket NO as life is going to give us. Other examples: don't drive while drunk, don't sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow, don't leave the house with frying oil burning on the stove, etc. As with the pedo babysitting his friends' children, the circumstances required to make the situation nuanced would have to be so extreme as to be ludicrous- like sure, if the friends happen to live nearby and they are playing with firecrackers in their backyard and daddy blows off his fingers and mama rushes him to the car to drive him to the ER, it's probably cool for the ethical pedo to watch the kid in a pinch until another family member can retrieve him. But the lengths you have to go to in order to find some reasonable excuse as to why a pedo should be putting himself into the role of babysitter for kids that aren't even in his own family are pretty extreme and beg the question as to why all the focus in the first place. Besides- his reasoning is suspect. He doesn't even look at kids in public places but he continues to babysit friends' kids? And that's the thing he asks about, his analogy is being around women, seems not to understand the difference, all signs that he can't really see things clearly from a perspective other than his own.

If that's too wordy for you, let me try another way. Here's the correct answer to that question. If he is an ethical pedo who wants to know if he can continue to babysit his friends' kids since he will never act on it, then he should be asking those kids' parents how they feel about it- not Dan. The parents are the ones who get to make that decision, not him. And if he thinks that the consequences of revealing this to them are too high, then he has his answer.

@24 EmmaLiz, wouldn't disclosing and then asking the parents to decide likely put them in an awfully awkward position? I don't know how well he actually knows them, maybe not well enough to disclose, but having their sitter bail on them with no good reason would probably invite questions.

But if it were me, I'd steer clear of possible trouble.

Do we know if there are gradations of attraction, i.e., are there people who are exclusively attracted to young kids, and others who are attracted, but not exclusively? Seems likely.

Glad to know we are not unhinged here.

The other problem with KIW's analogy is that adult women are capable of consent while children are not. A man attracted to women may find himself in a position where a woman is, or appears to be, flirting with him. A man in that situation is welcome to pursue that interest. A man misreading the signals of a child is potentially in the deepest possible shit. (Let's say he's babysitting and a child, innocently, crawls into his lap to be read a story? Most grown women would not sit in one's lap unless they were attracted.)

It seems there are other potential outlets for KIW. Cartoon porn does not harm actual children. And what about age play? Would play-acting daddy/little girl/boy fantasies with adults dressed in school uniforms -- sex workers perhaps -- scratch the itch?

Also, I don't really want this in my Google search history, but I think Japan actually has developed child sex robots now for just this purpose.

@17. David. I think the mandatory reporting rules, and their inflexibility in some cases, prevent people seeking help. For instance, teachers who don't quite offend--who seek out the company of children excessively or inappropriately, who perhaps touch in not-yet-sexual ways, who make children feel uncomfortable--are often 'moved on' by their employer. These people often want relief from their feelings, or better strategies to manage the risks they pose, but are discouraged from seeing a therapist.

@16. Sportlandia. In one way that's the wrong question. Of course a parent is going to worry that their child is in the tutelage of a pedo-by-inclination. The question is rather, 'how do we bake in child protection arrangements into our kids' activities?'. Like making sure there are always two adults supervising children's sports teams.

@19. Venn. Erm, yes. I would block NAMBLA from Prides. Organisations like this are the consequence of telling pedos that their impulses--their impulses, not their behavior--are reprehensible. Despite Dan's shout-out for Virtuous Pedophiles, many pedophile associations are of this kind, and overlook the power imbalance between adults and childen to suppose that children can consent to sex. They are really wretchedly unfortunate in my view ... but what can you do? Pedos driven underground aren't talking to us....

Otherwise I am entirely happy to disagree with you as ever and look for a revival of intersectional Prides.

So here's an example of a letter, written by a man, whose tone has inspired folks to respond sympathetically, even though what he's talking about is something most of us consider pretty unrelateable. See how tone, not gender, sets the tone for responses?

LavaGirl @23

"If someone is sexually attracted to children they need to seek help, and work out why"

I agree on the "seek help" bit, though it's probably worth checking what one's local mandatory reporting laws are before speaking to a therapist. But "work out why"? Sounds like a futile endeavour, seeing as "it’s now the standard conclusion [among researchers] that pedophilia is neurological and begins to develop before birth".

@slomopomo absolutely disclosing would put everyone in an awkward position but I think acknowledging this fact reveals the answer to the LW's question about whether or not he should continue to babysit his friends' children. There is no reason he should ever be alone with his friends' children. He will be around them in the company of other adults of course, and there's no reason for him to reveal anything about his own struggles to them because of this since there are other people around. But if he wants to justify to himself some reason why he should continue to unnecessarily be alone with them, perhaps he should examine why this is a priority for him in the first place. In my own experience, childless adults are not falling over themselves to be available as backup babysitters for their friends. He's written a short letter to Dan and it's one of the things he brings up which means it must have some impact on his life, something he might want to justify why he could continue doing it. I'm saying, if he really feels it's ethical to go down that path, to continue being a babysitter alone with children he finds sexually attractive but who he is absolutely certain he will never touch, then he needs to take the necessary next step and ask if their parents are ok with this. Which they won't be of course. The easier and more sane path to the same destination would be to just stop being a babysitter to his friends and not tell them why.

Also as an aside, I want to say that sometimes people behave differently around the people they are lusting after, even if they are ethical and attempting to be normal. Even if he never acts upon it, I don't think it's perfectly innocent for him to arrange situations in which he can be around children alone. If he is getting some pleasure out of the interaction, the kids could pick up on it. I'd be suspicious of a virtuous pedophile who says he's good with kids and only plays with them in an innocent way- one thing non virtuous pedophiles often claim is that the kids are into it, that they are all having fun, that the children are naturally sexual and curious as well. So if this is a feature of pedophilia, then I'd be suspicious of a pedo who says he can tell the difference- someone who must compartmentalize or self-monitor to distinguish between sexual and nonsexual play with kids is already a pedophile. That's not how it works for us non-pedos. It's not that we avoid sexual play with children- it's that such a thing never occurs to anyone in the first place. It's like avoiding flapping your wings to fly to the moon- there's no way to avoid something impossible. So this difference alone is going to change how he interacts with them. He should not do it. Period. Yes this is straightforward, non-nuanced, black and white. If you are an ethical pedo, you do not arrange situations to be alone with children. Even if he just had his friend's kids plop down on the couch on their iPads while he did chores and mostly didn't interact with them, again I have to ask- what's the point? There's no need. They are not his children nor even the children of his family members. If he were asking about his own kids, it would be a different answer. Many childless people manage to go their entire lives without ever once babysitting the child of a friend and many parents manage to raise their kids to adulthood while simultaneously holding friendships with childless people who never spend time alone with their kids. It's not hard- it's literally what adults do every day.

M?? Harriet - To be candid, I'm only about 90% in favour of Pride's eventual self-dismantling as unnecessary, as there does not yet seem to be so ready a pipeline for newbies in many areas.

To Gilbertsplain (or should it be Sullivansplain? but then Gilbert wrote the lyrics and Sullivan might suggest Andrew), "If everybody's somebody, then no-one's anybody," a line which the current LVBTQ+ community exemplifies almost perfectly. Binormative and homonormative can't co-exist; adding a host of other norms people shouldn't offend just makes it worse. I could only see an intersectional Pride working well if it were arranged on a rota with a different letter in charge each year to set the tone. Everyone would get a turn, and would know what would be acceptable/expected or contrariwise, and could attend or decline on that basis.

@24 First of all, if you are into a certain type of porn, you're probably having a real life attraction. You may not do it because it's hard to configure and dubiously legal but you wouldn't be watching it if you weren't attracted (I've never been into bestiality and also never watched a guy fuck a horse). So I think you're a bit naïve about the people-who-watch-a-lot-of-nonconsent-porn-but-totally-aren't-into-that-shit.

Secondly, I think Dan's expert (who everyone dismisses because they all know SOO much about pedophilia from their extensive experiences) would say that for many pedophiles, it is like your example. They are into something but they never act on it because they know its wrong. People who are into nonconsent porn know that it isn't something the can do in real life because the know its morally wrong so they don't do it. But at least they have porn, which your moral pedophile doesn't have.

The thing that's hard to understand is why people on these boards who are tolerant of all kinds of strange sexual proclivities go all Puritan on the very idea of a moral pedophile. Why is that you can't comprehend that someone attracted to children can exhibit self-control, just like any number of professors do around their coed students, dentists do around their attractive patients, and shoe-salesmen-with-a-foot-fetish do around their customers? I get that the concept is super gross but that's true of people into scat play and I don't think any of us have an issue with that. Age of consent plays a role but it's beyond that - a lot of normally reasonable people here are into the pedophile shaming (which is counterproductive since it hurts the development of groups that help pedophiles not offend and thus results in more acts of pedophilia - well played).

And bollocks on "pedophiles can't be parents." I'm attracted to young women but am not worried that I should be kept away from my daughter when she turns 18. I like nurses but if my child chooses nursing, should I not attend the graduation? How is that any different than you indicating that a pedophile can't be trusted with their own child? There's a bond that exists between parent and child and attraction doesn't overwhelm that anywhere else.

Not against your concept of asking the parents and can get behind the concept of them having the right to know. But I'd ask you a question - if you were HIV positive would you have to tell the parents in case the kid skins a knee? If you were a recovering alcoholic would the parents need to know? I get that's not an even comparison but I guess what I'm asking is how we draw the line with babysitter-informing-parents and babysitter's-right-to-privacy-because-they-have-their-shit-under-control. If its really under control, I think it's fine to withhold information that is only going to freak out a parent. But you gotta be 100% sure you aren't gonna be a problem. I guess I can just conceive of a pedophile who hits that criteria and you can't.

P.S. I can come up with any number of scenarios where its morally okay to drive drunk, to sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow, to leave the house with oil burning on the stove. They're all rather horrifying but they exist. Saying there's a blanket NO feels good but it isn't reality.

@31 That's the same argument that crazy significant others make when they say that you can't have friends of the opposite gender (sorry, heteronormative moment!) "You're always attracted so what's the point of having a female friend? You should only know meeeeeeeee!"

Interactions with children can be incredibly rewarding for any number of reasons. If you've been to the zoo with a kid you know this - zoo on your own is like visiting Alcatrez, zoo with a kid is a magical safari. The majesty of the world is never more apparent than when hanging with a child. To say that pedophiles have to throw away all of the benefits that can come from hanging around with kids is pretty harsh (note that I'm talking about 100% won't offend pedophiles). Professors may be attracted to their students but that doesn't mean that's the only thing they take from the interaction - if every professor who was attracted to students avoided students, no one would learn anything.

@26 I think a better analogy is a boss who had attractive employees who report to him or her. They know that this can't be okay no matter what so they don't even go there. Is it so crazy to think that a morally responsible pedophile could say "No kid is ever coming on to me. This is never okay. I will never do this, if I ever have even a moment of weakness I will remove myself from the situation, get back into therapy and get back to good." People are able to quit heroin and meth and not relapse, why can't the same be true of pedophilia? I'm not saying it's common but the number of people who think it's impossible is strange.

@16 That's the same logic that people used to discriminate against gay people, black people, transgender people. Fear is the base ingredient in hate, discrimination, and prejudice. I'd like to think that I'd want to talk to that pedophile and understand their worldview, even if it was super difficult and made me uncomfortable. My discomfort for a few hours pales in comparison to the discomfort they deal with every single day.

Yes Lava, he should seek help. The question is how? He could potentially tell a therapist. It is tricky as other's have pointed out. Dan has given good advice about that and CMD above had a suggestion as well. My guess is the link Dan suggested to online support groups would be the most likely place to meet people in the same situation who have better advice - from firsthand experience- about both seeking help and what it's like to go through chemical castration.

You'd have to find out about mandatory reporting in your area, and hopefully find someone with experience working with ethical pedos which would be rare in the first place, and then I don't know- how likely are therapists to advertise that? In my own jobs in the past, you only had to report if there was so potential harm to an actual child or children. Theoretcially, I interpret that to mean adult's admission of a general attraction to hypothetical children when he is never around any actual children would not be something I'd report. I say theoretically because I was never in a position in which an adult would make that admission to me, but that's what the training said- if there is potential harm to actual children. All the more reason why the LW, if he really is seeking help, should not babysit his friends' kids who are actual children.

Also regarding mandatory reporting, let's say the therapist to whom he makes this admission does report him. To whom? In my experience, it was to CPS who would then investigate. I don't know what they'd investigate here since there are no actual children in his care. I can't think of what other state agencies could get involved. The police might get a warrant to look for child porn on his devices or look in his house for it? No one wants to go through that, but assuming he's being honest then they won't find anything (though there are other nonrelated things they could find just to be petty assholes as cops can be). They can't charge him with a thought crime, right? Though certainly the threat of having police raid my house would be enough to keep my mouth shut- that can escalate fast. Is this the actual worry? He wouldn't end up on some predator watch list on anything- he would not even be charged (much less convicted) of anything. It's not like info from mandatory reporting is made public. Or is he worried about someone in this chain of action smearing him publicly? Sharing private info? These are all valid concerns, I'm just wondering- Are there examples of this happening? Could the social stigma be so extreme that we are all assuming a risk that isn't there? How common is it for ethical pedos who are never around children to admit to this to their therapists? And how common is it for that to result in state action? More research needed indeed.

Larry you are missing my point. A person who is truly into nonconsensual sex (who truly wants to rape someone, this is their actual desire- to rape someone) should never put themselves in a situation in which they could easily do it. This is exactly why it's analogous to the pedo- he should never be around children.

You are trying to side track with the porn which is irrelevant. A person might enjoy nonconsensual sex porn or nonconsensual sex role play all they like for whatever reason. But if they ALSO have a real life desire to rape someone (which most of the people watching this porn or doing this role play do not) then they should not be in a situation in which they could rape someone. You are trying to conflate these two things for some reason.

I'm not going to engage with the rest of your justifications because a) you are setting up more and more false analogies (for example, a kid with a skinned knee is at ZERO risk of contracting HIV from an HIV caregiver who puts a bandaid on it so for this to be an analogy you'd have to first believe that a kid alone with an ethical pedo is at ZERO risk of being abused by that pedo and I do not believe this since it's not a matter of objective fact like HIV transmission but rather a matter of that person's self control therefore the analogy is bullshit, a boss is not a child, a drug is not a child, it is not discrimination to say a pedo should not be alone with a child),

b) you are trying to prove with logic things that are not objective more generally,

and c) you have before come across as being a defender of child porn or pedophilia yourself (sorry if this is a false impression or if I have you mixed up with someone else) and I would be more sympathetic to your viewpoint if you put your greater experience in this matter towards the perspective of how to deal with your own frustrations while protecting children instead of trying to argue why pedos should be around children or why child porn is not always violent or any of these other things that tell me we have a fundamental disagreement about how healthy you are.

Larry, more briefly, from Dan's link:

There are a number of pedophile organizations in the world, but most of them are either unclear about their attitude towards sexual contact with children or actively campaign to lower age-of-consent laws and to legalize sexual acts with children or child pornography. Virtuous Pedophiles instead accepts these laws and aims to help pedophiles "lead happy, productive and law-abiding lives".

I have a lot of sympathy for the second group and I think we need more research into this and more support and voices from that second group could play a leading role in that which would make the world safer for everyone and hopefully even find ways to alleviate their own frustrations.

As for the first group though- the ones who are pushing and nudging their way towards more sexual access to children either through logic or personal justifications or claims that the kids like it or through banging on about age of consent laws or through NAMBLA mentioned above or anything, my immediate feeling is disgust and when I've tried to set that aside and engage or listen, what strikes me the most is a complete inability of these people to center perspectives other than their own and instead a motivation to justify and rationalize and normalize their own desires. Even when I try to set aside my own bias and just imagine that perhaps we have developed a culture that has made something wrong that is natural- just devils advocate- I come up against two glaringly obvious points: one, we live in this culture nonetheless, and two, the voices of thousands of childhood sex abuse survivors who felt very different about their experiences than their pedo abuses thought they did. So I'm left again with the conclusion that the problem is the pedo perspective- the way in which they interact with and view children is different from the rest of us and I don't know how to bridge that, but I have to come out on the side of children. It's the same stubborn dubious motivations about lowering age of consent laws. I agree that 16-18 or whatever is arbitrary and it makes no real sense to have a line like that, but as a society we work for the common good and most of us agree that people are not mature until at least a couple years after puberty, so we pick a number just for clarity because it would be impossible to evaluate each situation individually. This works out just fine for almost everyone- I'm all for reevaluation of the more draconian laws that punish Romeo and Juliet situations- but generally age of consent laws make sense and most adults can manage to just not fuck high schoolers. Just fuck 18 year olds instead. It's not that hard. So when someone bangs on about wanting access to 16 year olds, you have to wonder about their perspective. I see even less nuance with children and actual pedophiles. If you want a nuanced conversation, you have to engage in good faith and not try to logic away your justifications with bullshit analogies- which is exactly what the LW did too with his weird thing about women. This tendency is telling on oneself.

Maybe it looks like Puritanical judgement from your point of view, but from mine, it looks like smelling your bullshit and refusing to pretend it's something more. If you want to have an honest conversation about ethical pedophiles, you have to start from a place that child porn is harmful (with real children) and that pedos should not be arranging for unnecessary interactions ALONE with children. This is step one and there's no meandering away from it, we can't move on from there without it.

(BTW to be clear I know that NAMBLA and other people who want sexual access to post-pubescent teenagers are not pedophiles and that it's a different ball of wax altogether and more nuanced and complicated. My point was that this movement is connected to the normalization of pedophilia through their efforts to lower age of consent laws. I can't see any end to that debate as there isn't an objective age to pick but as a society we all tend to agree that there should be some age. People tend to fall on 15-18. In our society, we are at the higher end I think because we think of adulthood as starting after high school, and so while I know NAMBLA types are not pedos, it still seems weird to me that they would make it their main cause to gain sexual access to high schoolers when they could just fuck older legal teens.)

And honestly I'm going to walk away from this topic now because it upsets me.

I'm a little shocked that more people haven't suggested serious therapy. This is an abnormal desire and I believe most professionals agree it's a result of trauma or other factors that prevented you from maturing appropriately. (See Jackson, Michael). Given that you realize this is something you want to change, I believe it is possible. In the meantime, stay far far away from any children.

Larry I have to come back to say that I looked at the column from a few days back and I see it was Norm who was defending child porn, not you, though you defended Norm. That's why I had you linked in my mind to someone who was defending porn, and I see that's not the case. That colored my reply a bit and I apologize for that. On the other hand, I reread your post now again and I still think it stinks of protesting too much. You've repeated the LW's argument about various people who are attracted to adults being in positions around those adults as if children have the same agency and understanding of the world as adults do- since this has been explained repeatedly (by Dan and other posters) I don't know why you persisted in that likewise with the conflation of people who like porn for various reasons and whether or not ethical people should avoid situations in which they feel a desire to harm another person. Finally, regarding the idea that pedos should be babysitters- I've addressed that in detail. It's more than them just being able to control themselves, perhaps some can and some can't. It's about weighing the cost vs benefit. It's absolutely unnecessary for a pedo to be a babysitter and since they will not all exercise self-control all the time, why even take the chance? But more importantly, the interactions between a a child and an adult who gets off on children are extremely likely be different regardless. And yes, there are extreme scenarios in which entirely reckless behavior suddenly becomes the right option, but they are so rare and extreme as to be meaningless to discuss- which again is exactly my point. The mental hoops you'd have to go through to justify why a childless pedo should be alone and in charge of his friends' children are so ridiculous that it begs the question of why this justification is a priority in the first place. Occams Razor: he enjoys being around children and asks this question in his very short letter and even justifies it with an absurd analogy because he's a pedophile and gets pleasure from their presence even if he's not acting upon it.

@32. Venn, 'If everyone's somebody, nobody's anybody'. I think we're still the 5%. Even if the ranks of 'queer' are swelling, then we (and understanding earlier members of the fraternity's prerogative of questioning late-comers and possible fair-weather friends) are still a sharp minority. More importantly, we're not the 95%--or not the 75% or so of straight-worlders, heteronorms, homoskeptics, Fox News viewers and flat-out homophobes. I'd have allies in the parade--as far as I know they always were. However much a congeries, queer for me is a constituency defined by negation and opposition.

EmmaLiz @31: Yes. I'm in my late 40s, female, and can't think of a single time I've been asked to babysit my friends' kids. Sure, some of that may be an image I've cultivated of myself as Not Really A 'Kid' Person. Perhaps virtuous pedos should do the same. I can't see that a single man would be anyone's go-to babysitter unless he'd volunteered for that role. If they ask, say you're busy. Once this happens a few times they'll stop asking.

Larry @33-@36: I think the difference is that pedophiles are ONLY attracted to children. The boss who's attracted to their employees is also attracted to other adults who don't work for them. The pedophile is not attracted to anyone they could ethically get involved with. Or is that how it works -- the pedophile is not also attracted to adults? That's my understanding, happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Also, being at a zoo with a child is not being alone with a child. It's motive plus opportunity that are a concern.

Tim browne @ 41 Re therapy.
This should come in the context of what we’re trying to achieve here, which I assume is arresting/controlling an abusive, unlawful behavior.
Looking back and try figuring out why and what is certainly a positive step, yet not likely to make much of a difference in terms of preferences.

Another commenter suggested that if hard drug use can be avoided so can pedophilia, which I seriously doubt. If we use a computer analogy here I would place sexual attractions/preferences as part of the operating system that comes with the hardware. Drugs are an “adds on,” and since we deal with body chemistry and dependency in this case it may also be altered in such manner.

In order to eliminate unwanted sexual attraction one must turn off their sexuality in its entirety. I’m not saying it can’t be or shouldn’t be done in some cases, yet human sexuality is part of our lives. Can someone acquire tools and support to control their unwanted urges? Can we recognize it while allowing them to live their lives?
We don’t expect over eaters to quit eating altogether. We look for ways that enable them to live their lives while controlling behavior that puts them and others at risk.

In the spirit of BDF’s @ 26 “Glad to know we are not unhinged here” I would like to point out that those of us who have pedophiliac inclinations are not exclusively men.
And yes, Lava @ 22, there are people who are aware of who they are, take action and avoid situations that will put themselves and others at risk.

I mentioned Bill Cosby as an inaccurate example to our case because I think his fantasy was/is mostly that of consensual casual sex with other adults who will also view it as such.
Knowing it doesn’t always pan out that way he opted to drug them in a way that will make it look like it did, which is what rape drugs are about. Expecting to get away with it over the years seems like another fantasy.

BDF @ 44
"pedophiles are ONLY attracted to children"
I don't think this applies to all pedophiles. Many of us have wide range of preferences/attractions, and I assume this is also the case for those attracted to children.

@29 written by a man, but the subject is a theoretical ungendered person, which is who everyone is addressing.

Wanna put some odds on the next 10 SLOTTED/SL LW's which gender will get the more favorable responses (we can argue about what counts as favorable later)

@29 @49 and, of course, nothing in the letter indicates the gender of the LW - we're only assuming it's a male, however.

@49: @Sport: Since everyone is clearly assuming both LW and the "theoretical" person are male, the example applies. Not that one example is enough to prove any larger point--but it is one example.

Sporty @ 50
LW was wondering about their very own castration and the issue also came up in the response. I may be wrong, yet wanna put some odds that castration is usually associated with male anatomy.

My best friend for many years had always found pubescent boys very sexually attractive. He never had sex with anyone underage, and he satisfied his porn tastes with porn of young men who were of legal age but who looked much younger.

I'm sure there are lots of men out there dealing with the same thing. I only know of the one, because he knew he could talk with me about it and I wouldn't make lots of unwarranted assumptions about him. He was a lovely man in every way.

@26, I remember reading about a man, I believe in Atlantic Canada, who ordered a "child" sex doll from East Asia and got in legal trouble for it. He argued that he wasn't hurting any humans and was using the doll to keep from doing so. I don't know what ended up happening with the case.

I realize this is a little late in the comments, but I do have a response to @5.

I don't know if the research has changed, but I know that research suggests that having access to child pornography actually normalizes and exacerbates the impulses and is in fact quite detrimental. I have no reason to believe that in this instance it would be beneficial, even if said pornography was entirely computer generated, and did not harm any children.

I do also assume that pedophilia can also happen in degrees, so if someone is in the position to satiate through adult roleplay then I feel as though that may be an effective solution. If not, and I truly hate to say this, I know that I would choose chemical castration.

To your comment Lavagirl, I think that the issue here is that pedophilia does not seem to stem from trauma. It is not something that someone can "work through" anymore than therapy could change what type of woman I am attracted to. That is the entire problem. I don't think that it is a disease or result of trauma, but is in fact just a really unfortunate avenue of sexuality with no consensual form of release. Which is why chemical castration seems to the best, albeit depressing, solution.

SavageMarquis @55

"I don't know if the research has changed, but I know that research suggests that having access to child pornography actually normalizes and exacerbates the impulses and is in fact quite detrimental"

I don't know which research you're referring to, but it might be old and/or mostly based on interviews with convicted contact offenders, and therefore fundamentally flawed (for while it's true that most child abusers consume child pornography, it does not follow that most consumers of child pornography are (latent) child abusers, nor that consumption of child pornography leads to contact abuse). Dr Michael Seto from last week's SL appears to have done a lot of work in profiling child porn consumers (and amalgamating previous research), and has come to a rather different conclusion:

"Though online offenders are more likely to exhibit signs of pedophilia than contact offenders with child victims, on average, online offenders appear to pose a lower risk of contact sexual offending because they score lower on antisocial tendencies. In other words, online offenders are likely to have a strong motivation to sexually offend against children, because of their sexual interest in children, but have more inhibitions against acting on these kinds of motivations."

The above quote is from his 2012 testimony on "Child Pornography Offender Characteristics and Risk to Reoffend" (publicly available online), but there's more in journal articles and his books Internet Sex Offenders and Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children.

Sporty @50: In addition to the fact that roughly 97% of pedophiles are male (source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-01-14-0401130368-story.html
), KIW says, "After all, if I were into adult women, people wouldn't see anything wrong with leaving me alone with a couple of those," which removes any ambiguity about their gender. So no, you can't argue that people are being sympathetic because they may not perceive the LW as male.

And in fact the very phrase "if I were into adult women" reveals that this pedophile, if not all of them, is not also attracted to adults.
I do sympathise -- I couldn't stop being attracted to androgynous people if I tried. If my thing were children, I might join SavageMarquis in opting for chemical castration if age play didn't do the trick.

CMD @46

"In the spirit of BDF’s @ 26 “Glad to know we are not unhinged here” I would like to point out that those of us who have pedophiliac inclinations are not exclusively men. "

Am I reading this correctly - are you saying that you, personally, have "pedophiliac inclinations"? I don't mean to put you on the spot, but just not sure how else to interpret "those of us". If that's the case, I'd be interested in your perspective on coping strategies.

BiDanFan @44

"pedophiles are ONLY attracted to children [...] The pedophile is not attracted to anyone they could ethically get involved with. Or is that how it works -- the pedophile is not also attracted to adults? That's my understanding, happy to be corrected if I am wrong."

I think paedophilia is currently understood as a spectrum. The aforementioned Dr Seto says that it may be useful to think of it as a spectrum of sexual orientations with regards to age, just as hetero-, homo- and bisexuality refer to a spectrum of sexual orientations with regards to gender. More info here:

https://thestarphoenix.com/news/crime/weekender-why-should-society-care-about-treating-pedophiles

"Pedophilia is on a spectrum — ranging from pedophiles who are only sexually attracted to children to non-exclusive pedophiles who are sexually attracted to both adults and children. [...] "It’s easier to treat non-exclusive pedophiles because you can focus their attention on age-appropriate relationships, Seto explains. Treating exclusive pedophiles who don’t have any other sexual interests is a greater challenge". [Dr Seto adds that] the exclusive form of pedophilia is less common than the non-exclusive form."

Marquis @ 55
I would argue for more tolerance towards any in between shades. Many attracted to children have other (legal) sexual interests and would be reluctant to give it up altogether. Some are aware of their situation and are taking steps to avoid triggering situations.

Also, Lava does have a point that some pedophilia may be caused by a trauma. I suspect Michael Jackson was sexualizing his lost childhood, and it looks like clergy folks sexualize their own traumas and keep inflicting them on others.
That said, finding some rational real-or-not explanation doesn’t necessarily “cure” the behavior.

@38 And this in a nutshell is the issue with your viewpoint. The minute someone doesn't condemn all pedophiles to a life of fear, they are someone who doesn't take pedophilia seriously and probably is a pedophile themselves. Way to shut down the conversation. It must be easy to live in a world where things are black and white and you can just look down smugly on others. Put yourself in the writers' shoes for one minute and consider how hard their life is, how difficult it is for them to continue to do the right thing. And then have some compassion.

@39 You are reading your own fears into my arguments. I am in now way arguing for giving offending pedophiles access to children, lowering age of consent laws (with the exception of Romeo and Juliet laws but even there I feel somewhat shaky because 19 and 15 are two pretty different ages), or anything along those lines. NAMBLA are a bunch of idiots who should work on time travel so they can go back to the Ancient Greek times they love so much and experience this utopia they prattle on about.

I'm focusing on people like the letter writer, people who will not offend. If this guy is certain that he won't offend, if he truly knows that this desire is wrong and has strategies for how to avoid it - and he thinks he can babysit, then we should get off our high horse. It's too bad he can't talk to his friends about it but that's our society. We have no discourse for this issue and I don't see that changing anytime soon (and it's not just society's fault, every person who molested a kid and fucked up their life is to blame). But I think we should at least try to conceive of some gray area for people like this guy.

@44 @48 @60 That's an interesting point and I honestly have no idea. I imagine the consensus is probably correct - it may be a more powerful urge next to secondary attractions or it may be the only urge. Just like some people have a foot fetish that complements their other attractions and some people can only get aroused by playing with feet. But not a doctor.

I wonder if that should play some sort of a role for how we approach the ethical pedophile. Catholic priests have taught us the real issues with suppressing all sexual desires (or rather, trying to) but perhaps if there are other sexual outlets its more like having a foot fetish and ignoring it because . . . well, that's where the analogy falls apart. But maybe having some outlets makes it easier for a person to not offend? That's why its sad that ethical pedophiles have to hide - I think it would help us understand the problem as a whole if we could gather honest information.

@40 Apologies if the thing made you upset. I get that its uncomfortable and certainly could have done a better job of throwing in those qualifiers that acknowledge the awful side of the issue (of course offending pedophiles are terribly destructive and the consequences last generations etc.). My bad if my train of thought was jarring or seemed aggressive or pointed in a "legalize everything" direction. In a lot of ways I was playing devil's advocate and trying to push a more high-level dialogue at a societal level and not speaking to any personal situation.

I was blessed to not experience this myself but have had several girlfriends who have and its heartbreaking and incredibly destructive. Years and years of therapy and some things never get put back together. Just want you to know I get that and I'm sorry if I didn't phrase it better.

Lost Margarita. I guess you would classify my father as a non-exclusive pedophile. He had four daughters and managed to only sexually assault two of them. I am one of those two. He also had healthy lifelong sexual relationships with adult women.

If I had daughters I wouldn’t let him babysit. Ever.

I went through the (unfortunately) typical reaction phase of allowing my sexuality to express itself in unhealthy ways as a teenager. But then I told my story to my family and looong story short, confronted my dad at 19. He told me that what he felt for me, and my three sisters, and what he did to me (and my one unlucky sister) was completely natural, normal, and healthy. I realized then that he was damaged, and that he had only managed to abuse two of us because he lacked the opportunities to abuse all of us. This was true in spite of the fact that he had had an idyllic, trauma-free, and even blessed life to that point.

Because of that experience, I don’t give a single shit if a pedophile should be considered exclusive, non-exclusive, predatory, or gold star. None of them should be allowed to be alone with children that they find sexually desirable for a single second.

My dad offended because he happened to have daughters who worshipped him and trusted him. I don’t think he would have sought out 8 year old girls if they didn’t live under his roof, or occupy a space in his sphere of influence. Then again, my dad was a Naval officer, so I don’t know what he would have done if he were an elementary school teacher.

The analogy that comes to my mind is of criminals who start out with the intent to rob people. If they rob someone they aren’t sexually attracted to, they simply steal that person’s valuables. If they are sexually attracted to their victim, many times they decide on a whim to go ahead and rape, because fuck it! They’re breaking the law anyway! The fact that someone offends only if handed the opportunity makes them no better than rapists who prowl for victims. They are all rapists. Period.

Bottom line: NEVER allow exclusive (or non-exclusive) pedophiles to spend time alone with children.

Also, eat shit larrystone. Adults don’t have a right to the company of children. If you have any inclination to have sexual relations with children, you don’t deserve to see the wonder of the world through their innocent perspective. Especially if in the back of your mind you’re longing (forlornly or not) for an opportunity to steal that innocence. If only it wasn’t illegal. If only you wouldn’t get caught. If only people wouldn’t judge you.

It makes me physically ill. Especially knowing that thousands (if not millions) of children will be sexually assaulted across the globe today by outright deranged people, or people who contort themselves to justify their actions.

Lost Margarita, thank you. The information I was working with was quite old and did come from people who had been convicted, so I defer to current research.

JibeHo, I am truly sorry that you had to experience that. What you just described has happened to a disturbing number of people that I know and I know how damaging it can be (as well as horrifyingly prevalent). I hope that you are able to feel safe and happy now.

Lost Margarita @ 59
I’m not into minors nor children yet have met and befriended some who are, and they are not all men as some of us seem to think. That said, most are indeed men.
None of them asked to sit my children and they all know I wouldn’t allow it anyway.

JibeHo
I’m so sorry for what you had to endure, and admire your strength for not only recognize it but also confront him and defending others in the process.
His denials and rationalizations are indeed sick.

@1: Minor (heh) correction - young people also have agency and can/do respond to things they observe, experience, etc. as they wish. Our particular culture here in USA favors authoritarian paternalism and severely restricts the exercise of agency by the young, but that's an oppressive quirk of our culture, not a universal truth. The POWER DIFFERENTIAL is the reason that sexual activity between the very young and older people is morally fraught to the extent that it's a good idea to categorically proscribe it; I don't object to that norm and related laws, I object to them being used to push the false idea that young humans are less capable of self awareness, agency, etc.

@5, 55: All the methodologically sound studies on pornography we have conclude that the substitution effect is the dominant effect concerning sexual violence. While it may still be the case that normalization through pornography DOES lead some people to perpetrate sexual violence they might otherwise have avoided, including sexually assaulting young people, it appears that even more people substitute fantasy/masturbation with pornography for acts of sexual violence than are encouraged. Pure utilitarianism would suggest that we should decriminalize the possession and distribution (but not PRODUCTION) of pornography depicting the sexual assault of minors in order to prevent the most acts of assault that we can, though concern for the feelings of people whom someone has already assaulted (and, probably, squick factor or other irrational considerations) means we also ban possession and distribution, even though it likely results in more actual assaults.

@66: Not letting your father babysit makes perfect sense - he has a demonstrated history of assaulting minors. That's not the same as being a pedophile - he may be a non-exclusive pedophile, or he may be a non-pedophile rapist who targeted his children because they were convenient target for sexual violence over whom he had power. Your decision is an entirely reasonable, individually-informed and -based assessment; you potentially run into problems if you generalize from that one specific case to all cases, at least without evidence that the case from which you're generalizing is representative.

JibeHo @66, I'm so sorry you had to experience this, and also, perhaps, that you felt like you had to share these painful memories because of the tone of the comments here. I apologise if some of my own comments have come off as flippant - it was not my intention to minimise child abuse, or suggest that non-exclusive paedophiles were a lower risk and ok to babysit children. I simply think that our current legal and cultural approach to this problem is not helpful. I am interested in Dr Seto's and other current research, not because it's "sympathetic" to paedophiles, but because it seems to be working towards empirically-supported understanding and solutions. It gives me hope.

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your rape analogy, because I don't think this really happens. Rape is neither a crime of opportunity nor a crime of passion, although those who are complicit in this crime would often seek to present it as such.

John Hortsman @71

"Pure utilitarianism would suggest that we should decriminalize the possession and distribution (but not PRODUCTION) of pornography depicting the sexual assault of minors in order to prevent the most acts of assault that we can, though concern for the feelings of people whom someone has already assaulted (and, probably, squick factor or other irrational considerations) means we also ban possession and distribution, even though it likely results in more actual assaults."

I would genuinely like to see some sources for this, because it sounds as fallacious as the opposite claim (that child porn normalises and leads to direct acts of child abuse). Nothing I've read suggests that child porn consumption prevents paedophiles from becoming child abusers. What does appear to play a role is the individual personality and background. Are you extrapolating from some other study of "violent porn" in general?

Broadly speaking, I'm sceptical of any law that seeks to criminalise just one half of an economic transaction, as they tend to be very ineffective in actually solving a problem. Though I may be tempted to agree that posession, distribution and production should be punished with different degrees of severity.

Once again Dan is more wise than 75% of the commentators here.