Dismantling Five Myths About Child Molesters That Are Helping Them Evade Notice, Capture, and Judgment

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: Definitions of Paraphilias
2. Dismantling Myth #1: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Exclusively Attracted to Children
3. Dismantling Myth #2: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Exclusively Attracted to the Gender They Victimize
4. Dismantling Myth #3: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Pedophiles and Vice-Versa
5. Dismantling Myth #4: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Have Hundreds of Victims
6. Dismantling Myth #5: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Inflict Grievous Harm or Visible Injuries
7. Conclusion

 

Content

1. Introduction: Definitions of Paraphilias

      Ephebophilia is the primary sexual attraction to people aged approximately fifteen to nineteen years old.
     Hebephilia is the primary sexual attraction to children aged approximately eleven or twelve to fourteen years old.
     Pedophilia is generally defined as the primary sexual attraction to very young children, below the age of ten years old.
     Infantophilia (or nepiophilia) is the primary sexual attraction to children aged five or younger.

     These classes of paraphilic sexual attraction towards young people, are accepted among the psychiatric community, and several of these classes are listed in the D.S.M.-5 (the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders).

     If you first heard about these classes of sexual attraction outside of a criminological or psychiatric context, then you are probably familiar with the ongoing effort - by N.A.M.B.L.A., and organizations affiliated with the so-called “pedosexual” movement - to legitimize and normalize sexual relations between adults and minors, and to defend adult sexual attraction to minors, and to fight for the recognition of a freedom to act upon that attraction.
     Such organizations, and their supporters (almost all of whom are pedophiles), often cite the existence of different classes of age-based paraphilic sexual attraction, to downplay the seriousness of adult sexual attraction to minors, and to downplay the dangerous consequences of acting on that attraction.

     While it is factually accurate to point out that ephebophilia - the primary attraction to teenagers - is different from pedophilic attraction to children, that fact does not make sexual relations between adults and teenagers (i.e., rape) any safer. Also, the fact that a person is attracted to teenagers, does not necessarily mean that they are not attracted to even younger children as well.
     It is not the aim of this article, to defend sexual attraction to minors (i.e., ephebophilia, hebephilia, pedophilia, and infantophilia), nor acting upon that attraction, at any age or age range.

     I want to make it absolutely clear: All sexual relations between people over the age of 18, and people below the age of 16, should be condemned, illegal, and punished.

     In my opinion, states should come together to draft a uniform standard regarding whether the age of consent should be 17, and whether and how Romeo and Juliet laws can help solve the problem.

     I have explained my thoughts regarding legal solutions to this, at length, before; in my 2020 platform regarding child protection and sexual consent laws, which I called the Safe Kids Amendment (S.K.A.).

     I only mention the difference between the age classes of paraphilic attraction to minors, in order to explain that the differing definitions of these classes, makes it difficult to diagnose people as the exact class of pedophile that they are.

     This is important to talk about, because fussing over definitions can make it difficult to easily identify, and properly label, an adult who is suspected of being a pedophile or suspected of having molested a child.
     If the family of the victim is distracted by arguing about which term to use to describe the suspected abuser - "if" that person is indeed guilty - then the family will be unlikely to believe the person claiming abuse. Police, and the families of the people involved in the accusation, might have difficulty accepting that the accused person exactly matches the description offered by the person claiming to be their victim.

     Physical evidence is what matters most in these cases, but family members failing to notice an accused abuser's past patterns of abuse, could cause the family's secret pain to stay secret, instead of being noticed by investigators. Those family abusers who exhibit signs of narcissism or psychopathy will often inflict emotional abuse and psychological manipulation on their entire families - often more and more over the years, gradually, without them even noticing - in order to cover-up and/or distract from the physical and/or sexual abuse they committed in secret. Thus, the abuser's success in keeping the whole family in silence, confusion, and argumentation among themselves, should be recognized by investigators as something which could prevent the full disclosure of evidence related to the case.
     To put it another way, suspected child molesters often inflict emotional abuse which should be understood to function as a destruction or suppression of evidence, because of the chilling effect which that abuse creates on the family members' freedom of speech,

     Since it's possible for someone to be a pedophile but not a child molester - and since it's arguably possible for someone to be a "serial child molester" without having multiple victims - it's important to explain the differences between definitions, and to explain stereotypes that are making it difficult to identify child sex criminals.

     Throughout the remainder of this article, I will explain what I believe are the top five "harmful stereotypes" about pedophiles and child molesters. But these stereotypes do not harm child molesters; they are harming children; by helping child molesters evade notice, capture, and judgment.

     These stereotypes are as follows:

     1) some child molesters are attracted to adults in addition to children;
     2) some child molesters are bisexual;
     3) not all pedophiles become child molesters;
     4) some child molesters only have one or a few victims, rather than many; and
     5) injuries will not always be visible after a child has been molested.

2. Dismantling Myth #1: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Exclusively Attracted to Children

     As I stated above, one common definition of pedophilia is that it is the primary sexual attraction to children age ten years and below.

     We might conclude, therefore - from that, and from the fact that infantophilia pertains to attraction to children age five and below - that “pedophile” might most accurately apply to people whom are primarily attracted to children between the ages of five and ten.

     While one common definition of pedophilia is that it is the primary sexual attraction to children age ten and below, there is another definition, which some people accept, which I do not think is correct. This definition is that pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children under ten, rather than primarily.

     What is the difference, you might ask? Again, to be clear, there is certainly no difference in an ethical or moral sense, between someone who is exclusively, versus primarily, attracted to children. And certainly, some - maybe even many - pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children.

     But the difference on which I wish to focus, comes in the difference seen in the difficulty establishing an M.O. (i.e., a modus operandi; that is, a mode of operating), when we make unfounded assumptions about child molestation suspects that are based on possibly false definitions.

     If we define pedophilia to mean "a person who is exclusively attracted to children", then we risk making the mistake – whether consciously or unconsciously – to reject, with prejudice, the possibility that a person suspected of molesting a child, might have done what he or she is accused of, because they’re mostly (but not exclusively) attracted to children.
     If the "exclusively attracted" definition of pedophilia were officially or universally accepted, then it would be technically correct that a person who is secretly molesting his child while maintaining a sexual relationship with his spouse, is not a pedophile (because the fact that he's attracted to his wife, means he's not exclusively attracted to his child).
     There is a difference between a definition being technically correct or legally accurate, and the definition being helpful, or easy to understand. Ideally it should be easy enough for a child to understand it, because a child might have to make a claim that abuse occurred.
     The fact that a child's attacker is attracted to adults in addition to children, does not mean that the child suffered any less, nor that the attacker is any less dangerous. It might even mean that the person in question is more unpredictable than someone who is exclusively attracted to either children or adults.

     To illustrate the risks involved in misunderstanding, or disagreeing about, definitions, let’s take an example from pop culture. In Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, Humbert Humbert married a woman in order to have a sexual affair with her underage daughter.

     Taking an example from real life: Jeffrey Epstein maintained a sexual relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell (his girlfriend, handler, and assigned protectee) while they were sexually abusing teenage girls together and apart. Not only that, but French fashion designer Jean-Luc Brunel once wrote a note to Epstein saying that he had “a” girl for Epstein, whose age was “8 x 2”. This might refer to a sixteen-year-old, but if you’ve heard the rumors of Epstein’s interest in twelve-year-old French triplets, it’s just as likely that this might refer to two eight-year-olds.

     Moreover, plenty of men marry women, and then cheat on their wives with their wives’ daughters from previous marriages (i.e., their step-daughters). Some survivors of domestic abuse have posted on social media sites that their stepfathers had sex with them, and then their mothers blamed their own daughters for seducing the mother’s boyfriend or husband. This is often followed by the daughter telling the mother that it’s the mother’s fault for allowing it, or for choosing a boyfriend or husband who is a pedophile.

3. Dismantling Myth #2: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Exclusively Attracted to the Gender They Victimize

     If it is conceivable that a man can rape or molest his daughter or stepdaughter, without being exclusively attracted to minors, then why should it be inconceivable that a man could marry a woman, and then go on to develop a sexual attraction towards his own son or sons?

     What I am about to say is not in any way a knock against same-sex marriage, nor is intended to promote suspicion of gay couples. But it is possible for a homosexual man to disguise his attraction to men, and marry a woman.
     In American slang, the woman is known as the man’s “beard”. This is because – like a beard – she creates a false vision of manliness for her husband. Such a man could undoubtedly molest his son, using the false claim that he is straight, to provide a cover or alibi, if he is accused of that type of same-sex relation. In the case of a man using his wife to provide a cover for molesting his son, that man's wife becomes a beard for the man's pedophilia rather than his homosexuality.

     Aside from gay men who marry women to cover their homosexuality, there are also bisexual men who marry women because they’d rather marry a woman than a man. Early 20^th century American songwriter Cole Porter, and his wife Linda, are one example of a couple that fit that description. [Note: Cole Porter didn’t molest his son, because he didn’t have any children. But I don’t care to speculate on whether Porter was a pedophile, since nothing would suggest that. The point is that a man can be attracted to both males and females, and then marry a woman, get her pregnant, and have a son, and potentially molest that son.]

     Additionally, there have been incidents in which children and teenagers have been coaxed into watching pornography by adults, and then gone on to molest, rape, and/or torture other (usually smaller) children. From the fact that these children molest younger children because they saw porn that probably featured adults, we can reasonably conclude that in most cases like this, the child will grow up to be attracted to both children and adults for the rest of their life (unless they get successful therapy for the abuse they suffered).
     Bisexual pedophiles do exist. A man, or a woman, could be bisexual (that is, attracted to both men and women), have children, and molest either their son or their daughter, or both. A pedophile's sexual attraction doesn't always determine which sex they are likely to victimize, but we shouldn't underestimate the likelihood that a person's choice in a victim, reflects sexual attraction in addition to the urge to dominate someone smaller and more vulnerable (i.e., that it reflects both sexual attraction and the abuser's penchant for violence).

     I say none of the above in order to promote or excuse unfounded suspicion of child molestation on the part of anyone matching the descriptions listed above.

     I am merely illustrating several real-life and fictional examples which show that not all people who molest children are exclusively attracted to children.

4. Dismantling Myth #3: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Pedophiles and Vice-Versa

     I also wish to make it clear that not all pedophiles are child molesters, and not all child molesters are pedophiles.

     I say “not all pedophiles are child molesters” because some adults are primarily or exclusively attracted to children, but do not go on to offend. Some of these people call themselves “righteous pedophiles”, but I do not say this to affirm the righteousness of being a pedophile. There is none. There is righteousness, however, in not offending, needless to say.

     I say “not all child molesters are pedophiles” because it’s possible that some people who molest children, are not primarily attracted to children, or at least are not consciously attracted to children.
     For example, suppose that someone were molested as a child, and the abuse were so traumatic that they forgot the abuse, and they went on to molest a child while lacking memory of their own abuse. Such a person would probably claim, when caught, that they “don’t know what came over” them. They might even realize, after molesting the child, that they think they did it because they were abused as a child, and are now recovering memories of their childhood abuse.
     Furthermore, the word pedophile literally means "child lover". To be clear, when a child is molested, there is no difference for that child whether the person who molested them, did it because they hate children, or because they "love children too much". But the fact remains: Some people who molest children love children too much, while some people molest children because they hate children.
     There are people - like Jimmy Savile, for example - who admit to hating children, yet raped children. Of course, Savile claimed that he hated children, in order to dismiss accusations that he raped children. But when Savile says he hates children, we should believe him; that is probably the one thing he was telling the truth about. I find it hard to imagine Savile falling in love with any of the sick and dying children he raped on their deathbeds.
     I say this not to downplay the seriousness of sex crimes perpetrated by people who don't hate children. I merely wish to point out that there are people who profess to hate children, yet will be around them (in order to rape them). This is important to think about because it is easy to dismiss the possibility that a person who claims to hate children, could be abusing them when they're left alone with them nd nobody is looking.
     I also wish to point out that there are people who say they love children, and do love children, but are still risks to children (i.e., because they "love children too much"). Many of such people could probably be adequately described as mentally ill pedophiles who have not only a sexual attraction to children (or one or the other gender, or both genders, of children), but also particular romantic feelings towards one or more children in particular. Such people may use their love for children, as a cover for their pedophilia, and/or as a justification for their feelings.
     Such people may be just as much of a potential danger towards children, as someone who professes to hate children (whether that child-hater is a child sex criminal or not).
   

     To say that “not all child molesters are pedophiles” is not to reduce suspicion of anybody. Most - and probably even nearly all - child molesters, are pedophiles, in fact. To say otherwise would be ridiculous, unless it happened that most molested children were assaulted by people who had no sexual attraction to children, or very little as compared to their attraction to adults.
     The point is that you have to be watchful of both child haters and child lovers who may wish to harm your children - and you have to be aware of how they may wish to use hate or love as a cover for harming children.

     Hopefully the following three infographics, which show three different methods of visualizing this information, will help the reader understand the differences between child molesters and pedophiles.

This diagram shows that

child molesting pedophiles are both

child molesters and pedophiles;

while there also exist

child molesters whom are not pedophiles,

as well as pedophiles whom are not child molesters.

This diagram shows what happens when you combine

categories of offense with the

pedophile vs. child molester category.

Since "offending non-offending pedophiles"
and "non-offending child molesters"

do not exist, only four types of

potential child sex offenders are shown here.

This diagram shows, and compares and contrasts,

six types of potential child sex offenders,

as well as two types of people whom are

extremely unlikely to sexually harm children.

Click, open in new tab or window, and download,

to view in full resolution

5. Dismantling Myth #4: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Have Hundreds of Victims

     In fact, I have said all of the above, in order to caution my readers that anybody could be a pedophile, or a child molester, because what most people think they know about the profile of child molesters, is based on unfounded rumors.

     It is commonly thought that all or most people who perpetrate sex crimes against children, do all of the following: 1) are exclusively, rather than primarily or even just somewhat, sexually attracted to children; and 2) will definitely offend; 3) will offend repeatedly or serially; and as such, 4) have dozens and dozens of victims already.

     This may sound like a farfetched claim, but this is, unfortunately, the stereotype about child molesters and child rapists, which has been allowed to propagate through American society. This is partially owing to the widely-repeated, and unfounded, claim, that every child molester has molested hundreds of children. It is also owing to the stereotype that every child molester is a serial child molester.

     This rumor has suffered from the “telephone game”; it was actually based on a real statistic; that the average serial child molester may have as many as four hundred victims in his or her lifetime. That is very different from saying that every person who has touched a child inappropriately, has four hundred victims.

     Again, I say this not to diminish the seriousness of the crimes of child molestation and rape. I say this to make it clear that just because the average serial child rapist might have four hundred victims in his lifetime, that is no guarantee that your husband will not molest your son or daughter once or twice in his entire lifetime.

     It is important to keep in mind that it is possible for a person to be a serial child molester or rapist, while only having one victim. A person who repeatedly victimizes the same child, is a "serial" child molester or rapist, every bit as much as someone who targets multiple children.
     It is important to keep in mind because sometimes a child is molested or raped by its own parent multiple times and nobody sees it. When that happens, it will often be difficult for people to believe it. They might say, "That's ridiculous, your parent loves you, and besides, everybody knows that child molesters are (fill in the blank)."
     Fill in the blank with "all fat and lonely and don't have families", or with "all criminals who are constantly on the run", or "all have multiple victims, so it would be easy to tell, because someone would have come forward by now."

     A study called "Psychological Profile of Pedophiles and Child Molesters" by John B. Murray, explains common (but not all-pervasive) profile characteristic of pedophiles and child molesters. The abstract of that study reads as follows:
     "Pedophiles and child molesters share some characteristics. Most are male, and they can be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Some prefer adult sex partners but choose children because they are available and vulnerable. The sexual abuse perpetrated may be a 1-time incident and may consist only of fondling. Penetration is unlikely with young children. Perpetrators' ages range from teens to midlife. Most victims are girls, and the perpetrator usually is a relative, friend, or neighbor. The home of the victim is often the setting for the incident. When boys are victims, sexual abuse may take place outside the home, and perpetrators may be strangers. Perpetrators of sexual abuse of children often claim they they themselves were victims of childhood sexual abuse."

     The abstract continues (I advise the reader to focus on this sentence):
     "Psychological profiles are helpful but are compromised partly because many perpetrators are prisoners and control groups are lacking for this research."
     http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223980009600863?journalCode=vjrl20
     The fact that psychological profiles of child molesters are "compromised partly" should prompt us to use logic - and ask ourselves if we can think of examples of exceptions to the rules we thought we knew - to reconsider what information needs to be added, to the accurate information regarding child sex offender profiles, to complete our knowledge about this topic.
     That is why I have written this article.
     

6. Dismantling Myth #5: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Inflict Grievous Harm or Visible Injuries

     Knowing that not every person who molests a child is a serial child rapist with hundreds of victims, we should also keep in mind that not every act of child molestation or child rape will always leave life-threatening injuries, or even visible scars.
     Oprah Winfrey has discussed, in multiple episodes of her television show, that some children who have been molested, will not even know that they have been molested. This, according to Oprah, is because the abuse was not physically painful. Some child molesters - but not rapists - abuse children by tricking them into focusing on any physical or sexual pleasure which the child might derive from the act.

     This is not to say that molestation can be good for a child; it is simply to acknowledge that some child molesters intentionally include some pleasurable touching when they molest children. They do this: 1) to confuse the child about whether they like the touching; and/or 2) because rape is (almost always) about both violence and sexual attraction.

     To say that child molesters sometimes get away with their crimes by gently restraining the child, and then molesting them without severely injuring them or raping or penetrating them. This could potentially cause the child to remember more pleasure than pain being involved in the event. And that is, of course, the outcome which the child molester would desire, because a molested child who can't remember an incident being more painful than pleasing, is unlikely to come forward to report the way they remember the event.

     Parents should keep in mind that wounds, lacerations, blood in the stool, bruises, and other forms of easily visible injuries, will not always appear on a child who has been molested.
     Blood in the stool likely indicates anal rape, as does anal fissure. Torn labia, and blood, indicates vaginal rape.
     But a boy who has been forcefully restrained, and masturbated against his will, is likely to have no more than a visible bruise or two, if even that. It is certainly possible to molest a child without leaving a mark. It is probably not possible to rape a child without causing injuries and leaving evidence, but it is certainly possible to molest a child and leave them unscathed, except for the obvious emotional and psychological trauma, and physical stress, which result from being forcibly restrained and molested.
     I would name some examples of ways to molest a child without leaving a mark, but I don't want to give anyone - child molester or not - any wrong ideas. So it's best to just end here.     

7. Conclusion

     If we go on thinking that these unfounded rumors and stereotypes about what sort of person is likely to molest our children, are true, then we risk thinking that, if our child gets molested, then it could only have been by someone who is a crazy, psychopathic, serial child rapist, who has many, many other victims already.

     No child-molesting husbands or wives are going to get caught, if we go on giving parental molesters of children a sort of “qualified immunity”; believing that the fact that the child is being taken care of, means that they couldn’t have been molested. [Note: Some courts will give parents who sexually abuse their children "slaps on the wrist", such as by making them take a class, or read a pamphlet, about how molesting children is bad.]
     And moreover, nobody will get caught, if we go on believing that children couldn’t have been molested by anyone for whom the police aren’t already searching.
     None of these stereotypes help detect child molesters, either before or after they offend. They only help people remain in denial about what's going on in their own families.

          Lastly - and this point probably deserves its own section - a child is more likely to be molested, raped, and/or kidnapped, by someone they know (like a family member, neighbor, or teacher) than someone they don't know (like a criminal from off the street).

     Learn the warning signs of child sexual abuse and neglect.
     Is the child particularly afraid of one parent, or a specific adult? Does the child seem to want to talk about nothing but their own safety, or about how they're being mistreated by someone? Does the child know too much about sex at a young age? Has the child sexually abused or tortured other children or animals? Does the child have dark circles under its eyes? Does the child seem distant, lonely, or scared most of the time? Does the child have few friends, or few close friends? Does the child seem to have a hard time trusting certain people, or people in general?
     If this describes a child you know, then that child might be suffering from neglect, abuse, or even sexual assault.
     If the child has reported an injury related to sexual abuse, document that injury, visit a doctor, and get a rape test (if necessary) as soon as possible. Document everything you can regarding the abuse, and make sure to save anything and everything (clothes, furniture, other items) that might have the abuser's DNA on them.

     Child sexual abuse and assault are sensitive subjects. For years, courts have shied away from prosecuting priests accused with such crimes, based on the notion that the trial would traumatize the victim, and make them re-live the traumatic experience (even though one cannot say that without accidentally admitting that the first traumatic experience happened to begin with).
     Many courts simply don't want to get involved in child molestation cases. It's almost as if the courts see these criminal cases as "intra-family disputes" in which the state should not interfere.
     It is difficult to find trustworthy therapists, police officers, and social workers, who are not either abusers themselves, or else have come to see child abuse as an inevitable fact of life, which pays their bills, giving them no incentive to do anything but pass victims off to other therapists, police officers, and social workers.

     Before deciding whether to come forward, learn about whether there have been more complaints, in your state, about children suffering abuse at the hands of either the police or the child protective services agency or agencies in the state.

Written and Published on May 8th, 2021

Edited and Expanded on May 12th, 16th, and 17th, 2021

Images Added on May 17th, 2021

Originally published under the title
"Not All Child Molesters Are Exclusively Attracted to Children"

Title changed to
"Dismantling Five Stereotypes About Child Molesters That Are
Helping Them Evade Notice, Capture, and Judgment"

on May 12th, 2021