Click on image, and open in new tab and/or window,
and/or download, in order to see in full resolution
Image created and published on August 21st, 2023.
Based on research conducted in September 2021.
Showing posts with label pedophiles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pedophiles. Show all posts
Monday, August 21, 2023
Wednesday, January 18, 2023
Celebrity Drag Kids: Are They Being Abused? (Infographic)
In the four to six years since "underage celebrity drag queens" became a thing - and Desmond "Desmond is Amazing" Napoles and Nemis Quinn "Lactatia" Melancon-Golden rose to fame at the ages of ten and seven, respectively - people have been wondering about "where the line is", in regard to how much children should be allowed to experiment with cross-dressing within the view of adults.
When Nemis (stage name "Lactatia") was asked onstage, in 2017 - by an adult male drag queen - whether it was his first time doing drag, he responded "Um... not really," to which the mostly male audience responded with laughter.
[Note:
Nemis began doing drag shows at the age of seven.
If that was funny, then it was funny for two reasons: 1) it's normal for little boys to want to wear girls' clothes, and so, people laughed because they could relate to what Nemis said; and 2) the audience probably wasn't full of pedophiles.
The reason why the audience wasn't full of pedophiles, was that the audience showed up expecting adult male drag queens. They weren't expecting to see a child. Which means they didn't specifically come to that event knowing that there would be cross-dressing children there.
But that was early-on in the course of the "famous child drag queen" phenomenon.
But 2017 was then; this (2023) is now.
What happened at that event with Nemis, is completely different from the kind of widespread, mass-scale, intentional grooming of children into experimenting with drag - in front of audiences full of adults who show up knowing that they will be seeing cross-dressing children - which is happening in some places today.
In mid-2022, a Dallas-area gay bar called Mr. Misster held an event called "Drag the Kids to Pride", billed as a "family-friendly drag show".
According to reporter Jay Wallis, "drag performers danced and walked down the aisle in the center of the room. At times, the dancers would take dollar bills from some of the children. Kids also walked with the dancers down the aisle...".
The bar also featured a sign - inside the bar - which read, "It's Not Gonna Lick Itself", an obvious sexual entendre which appeared to refer to ice cream.
http://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/dallas-family-friendly-kids-drag-show-mr-misster-protest/287-c7984c66-6141-4690-97b1-ec0b9882b4bbhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV50Fx8Kkt4
The event was greeted with protests.
[Note:
Cauldron Ice Cream (located in Plano, Texas, a suburb of Dallas) has displayed the exact same "It's Not Gonna Lick Itself" sign inside of its physical business, and also displayed it as part of an advertisement on Facebook. Cauldron is a "naughty" sexually-themed ice cream store, which sells desserts bearing names such as "rim jobs" and "gang bangs".
While Cauldron Ice Cream has not hosted any drag shows, nor any events involving children, parents should still think carefully before deciding to bring their children there, given the inappropriate names of the desserts, and the sign inside. Also, Cauldron is worth mentioning, because it's a possible explanation for the origin of the sign seen at Mr. Misster.
Cauldron opened in Plano in 2019.Watch me explain the Mr. Misster scandal and its connection to Cauldron Ice Cream at the following address:
http://rumble.com/v20bqwv-are-people-using-ice-cream-to-groom-children.html]
Most recently - in December 2022 - a Christmas-themed drag show called A Drag Queen Christmas allowed people under the age of 18 to attend, and went on tour, reportedly doing 36 shows in 18 different locations.
The show featured adult men humping each other in reindeer costumes to Christmas songs with dirty lyrics, the adult male host asking a child "Are you confused yet?", and a man with giant fake breasts with fake nipples visible.
Reporters have commented that the vast majority of children present were brought there by single mothers, and that there were few (or zero) fathers present.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11541477/Armed-protestors-clash-outside-ages-Christmas-themed-drag-show.htmlhttp://texasscorecard.com/local/christmas-drag-show-for-kids-met-with-protests-in-san-antonio/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjZ2rJY0GTA
The most important question to ask, in all of this, is "Are these children actually being abused?"
Well, in a strict legal sense... yes.
Objectifying a child's body or sexuality - in a manner which causes them to become exploited in exchange for money - is one of the legal definitions of sexual exploitation of a minor. If it's on film, it may even be legally considered child pornography, or at least video evidence that grooming has occurred.
Objectifying a child's body or sexuality - in a manner which causes them to become exploited in exchange for money - is one of the legal definitions of sexual exploitation of a minor. If it's on film, it may even be legally considered child pornography, or at least video evidence that grooming has occurred.
But morally? Also yes.
Children are not old enough to be capable of giving fully informed consent, regarding all of the potential negative consequences associated with things that could affect them for their entire lives; these things include being groomed for sex by adults, having sex, getting married, getting tattoos and intimate piercings, and undergoing forms of genital mutilation.
They can't consent to allow their bodies, and sexuality, become the focus of adult conversation. The "no" becomes assumed (or, at least, should be assumed), due to the child's lack of ability to give a "yes" which would have fully informed consent to back it up.
And the idea that parental consent (or judicial consent, for that matter) can override that presumed, automatic no on the part of the child, becomes difficult to argue, the younger the child being discussed. The idea that a child much younger than 16 or 17 years old could possibly consent to sex, grooming, marriage, or genital surgery, should be unthinkable.
But right now, it is not, so here we are.
One problem is that the police don't even know that what's happening is technically illegal, and don't know that they are within lawful authority to arrest the planners and financiers of events which aim to profit off of such grooming and exploitation.
They can't consent to allow their bodies, and sexuality, become the focus of adult conversation. The "no" becomes assumed (or, at least, should be assumed), due to the child's lack of ability to give a "yes" which would have fully informed consent to back it up.
And the idea that parental consent (or judicial consent, for that matter) can override that presumed, automatic no on the part of the child, becomes difficult to argue, the younger the child being discussed. The idea that a child much younger than 16 or 17 years old could possibly consent to sex, grooming, marriage, or genital surgery, should be unthinkable.
But right now, it is not, so here we are.
One problem is that the police don't even know that what's happening is technically illegal, and don't know that they are within lawful authority to arrest the planners and financiers of events which aim to profit off of such grooming and exploitation.
Wherever the law prohibits exploitation of a child for commercial purposes - i.e., everywhere - the local county police can enforce the relevant law as liberally as they please.
This could include: 1) talking to children about their sexuality; 2) inviting children to dance in inappropriate manners and in inappropriate places (such as bars and places where "dancing poles" - a/k/a "stripper poles" are present); and 3) allowing children to (sometimes) wear revealing clothing, or even take off some of their clothes, in front of adults.
Desmond "Desmond is Amazing" Napoles, took off some of his clothes, while dancing to the No Doubt song "I'm Just a Girl". And he did it while accepting dollar bills from the adult men who were present.
However, Desmond's supporters were confused about this, because they falsely believed that "In order to be considered a stripper, you have to take off all of your clothes, and therefore what Desmond did was not stripping."
But critics of what Desmond is being allowed to do, have noted that there are laws in some states which prohibit even adults from taking off all of their clothes. In their verbiage, those state laws treat partial and total removal of clothing the same; they are both forms of stripping. That's why they are (supposed to be) regulated as such.
So is anybody coming to save these kids?
Desmond, Nemis, and the kids who are admittedly "dragged" to events designed to hyperfocus on whatever few sexual thoughts these children might happen to have (which is apparently public information now)?
They are trying to.
Police officers having no idea that grooming kids like this, is illegal - and no idea why it's illegal - certainly doesn't help.
Nor does it help that - on November 19th, 2022 - a man killed five people (and shot twenty-five others) inside of a gay night club called Club Q, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This shooting was blamed on homophobia and transphobia, because the shooter, Anderson Lee Aldrich, shot the club up "just as Club Q was wrapping up its weekly Saturday evening drag show."
http://www.npr.org/2022/12/27/1138674412/drag-show-threats-bans-club-q-shootinghttp://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/opinion/colorado-springs-shooting.html
http://isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/groomer-discourse-intensifies-and-neo-nazis-celebrate-in-wake-of-colorado-springs-attack/
To the horror of the LGBTQ+ community, the accused shooter subsequently claimed to identify as nonbinary.
It's not clear whether Club Q's November 19th, 2022 event was attended by children, nor is it clear whether children were permitted to attend the event. This makes it difficult to determine whether the shooter chose Club Q as his target because he thought they were hosting and sponsoring the grooming of children.
Now - largely because of that shooting, and the way the mainstream media and the public interpreted it - people who show up to protest events where they suspect grooming is occurring, are treated as if they are armed, and want to bring violence.
Well, could you blame them?
When did it become wrong to use "violence" - not initiative or aggressive force, but the use of power and strength for defensive purposes - to protect vulnerable children who have no idea that what is happening to them is not only illegal, but also wrong? Children, who have not gained the ability to give informed consent to speak to total strangers about their gender identity (and perhaps even sexual preferences)?
The use of force, in defense of those who are incapable of defending themselves, is not violence.
The vast majority of the people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2020 were unarmed. So are most of the people who protest drag shows geared towards children.
And an ordinary citizen would be no more wrong to bring a gun to a place where a child is being illegally exploited, than it would be wrong for a police officer to bring a gun to such a place in order to arrest the planners and financiers of the event.
That's because someone who is crazy enough to objectify a child in front of a whole crowd full of people who paid to be there, might be crazy enough to abduct or molest a child, and perhaps even crazy enough to use a weapon - and use it - in order to facilitate such a kidnapping.
Children are much smaller than adults are. They cannot obtain gun licenses. They need adults to protect them. Can you really blame someone for being prepared to defend himself while he attempts to collect evidence that children are being exploited?
In one final, gut-wrenching twist of the narrative, "groomer" is now being described as an epithet specifically designed to equate gay and trans people to pedophiles, rather than an epithet describing all pedophiles who groom children in general, which is what it really is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR5srUjgqr4
This, the pedophile elite running mainstream media apparently hope, will lead to anyone and everyone caught using the word "groomer", being described as both a homophobe and a transphobe.
All of this makes it very difficult to even mention the possibility that a particular gay or trans person abused a child, without being described as homophobic or transphobic.
Children are much smaller than adults are. They cannot obtain gun licenses. They need adults to protect them. Can you really blame someone for being prepared to defend himself while he attempts to collect evidence that children are being exploited?
In one final, gut-wrenching twist of the narrative, "groomer" is now being described as an epithet specifically designed to equate gay and trans people to pedophiles, rather than an epithet describing all pedophiles who groom children in general, which is what it really is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR5srUjgqr4
This, the pedophile elite running mainstream media apparently hope, will lead to anyone and everyone caught using the word "groomer", being described as both a homophobe and a transphobe.
All of this makes it very difficult to even mention the possibility that a particular gay or trans person abused a child, without being described as homophobic or transphobic.
But the research must continue.
We don't know much about the crimes committed against the multitude of particular children who attended A Drag Queen Christmas and other drag shows.
Suffice it to say that they were spoken to in objectifying manners (i.e., hyper-focusing on sexuality while speaking to them), and groomed by adults through desensitization to inappropriate dancing and dress. Although the children's names are unknown.
But, as for Desmond and Nemis, it's clear that they were groomed. But indecent exposure, drugging, and even rape are possibilities in their cases.
In a late 2018 or early 2019 issue of Huck Magazine, Nemis appeared (pretending to gasp) in a photograph with a nearly-naked man.
The man wore a loin cloth that was so small, it was barely visible, and displayed tattoos and nipple piercings. He also wore a wig and high-heeled shoes.
Huck Magazine has since deleted all evidence, on the internet, that it published that article.
We don't know much about the crimes committed against the multitude of particular children who attended A Drag Queen Christmas and other drag shows.
Suffice it to say that they were spoken to in objectifying manners (i.e., hyper-focusing on sexuality while speaking to them), and groomed by adults through desensitization to inappropriate dancing and dress. Although the children's names are unknown.
But, as for Desmond and Nemis, it's clear that they were groomed. But indecent exposure, drugging, and even rape are possibilities in their cases.
In a late 2018 or early 2019 issue of Huck Magazine, Nemis appeared (pretending to gasp) in a photograph with a nearly-naked man.
The man wore a loin cloth that was so small, it was barely visible, and displayed tattoos and nipple piercings. He also wore a wig and high-heeled shoes.
Huck Magazine has since deleted all evidence, on the internet, that it published that article.
The man in the photo is named Paul Jason Dardo. He was born in 1992, and goes by the stage name "Violet Chachki". Dardo uses she/her and they/them pronouns.
Dardo won Season 7 of RuPaul's Drag Race, a show in which adult male drag queens compete in beauty pageants, dance contests, and make-overs.
Thankfully, there is no evidence that Dardo abused Nemis either sexually or physically.
But it's possible that Dardo's nearly exposing himself to Nemis could qualify as indecent exposure to a minor. Even though Dardo wore a loin cloth that covered his genitals, the case could easily be made that Dardo sought sexual gratification in the act of exposing 99% of his body to the child.
Dardo won Season 7 of RuPaul's Drag Race, a show in which adult male drag queens compete in beauty pageants, dance contests, and make-overs.
Thankfully, there is no evidence that Dardo abused Nemis either sexually or physically.
But it's possible that Dardo's nearly exposing himself to Nemis could qualify as indecent exposure to a minor. Even though Dardo wore a loin cloth that covered his genitals, the case could easily be made that Dardo sought sexual gratification in the act of exposing 99% of his body to the child.
As for Desmond, his case is much more grim, and unsettling.
Police were apparently unresponsive after being flooded with calls, in 2019, that Desmond was exploited when he danced for money while engaging in partial stripping.
An article from Buzzfeed, criticizing those who tried to get police involved, published a quotation from Desmond's mother Wendy: "They're basically saying queer kids equal pedophilia and sexuality. It's really quite disgusting they're seeing kids like this".
http://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/laurenstrapagiel/desmond-is-amazing-child-drag-queen
In 2018, Desmond - then ten years old - appeared on Episode #442 of the Pee-ew! web show, hosted by former New York "Club Kids" Michael Alig and Ernie Glam.
In that video, Desmond appeared drugged. If he wasn't drugged, then he was at least very tired, as he could barely keep his eyes open. That could also be attributed to the large, heavy fake eyelashes he was wearing at the time, however.
But also, in that video, while Michael Alig drank something from a pink cup, he asked someone off screen for more "tea". This prompted Ernie Glam to laugh. In the background, directly behind Desmond (who sat in between Alig and Glam), there was a painting hung up on the wall, that (according to YouTuber AnnaMae Renee) was painted by Michael Alig himself. That painting contained a little girl jumping rope, next to the letters "ROHYPN". These are the first six letters of the drug "rohypnol", commonly known as "roofies", and "the date-rape drug".
These facts have led to speculation that Alig might have drugged Desmond with rohypnol.
This concern that Alig potentially drugged Desmond is not without warrant, though, as Alig has long been known as the kind of person who drugs people.
On an episode of Geraldo's The Geraldo Rivera Show, Michael Alig appeared - alongside fellow "Club Kid" Michael Musto (the Village Voice columnist) - in an episode about "Club Kids", the New York City scene of the 1980s and 1990s which was comprised of gay bars, discos, and drag events. In that episode, Geraldo accused Alig of giving his own mother a club drug without her knowledge.
Additionally, Alig had Hepatitis-B, and invented a drinking game in which the loser had to drink from a glass that he had contaminated with Hepatitis-B.
If you still don't think Michael Alig is untrustworthy after reading that, it is worthwhile to note that he was also a confessed and convicted murderer. He and then-roommate Robert Riggs murdered Andre "Angel" Melendez following a dispute about drug money.
Alig was sentenced to 10-20 years in prison, and was released in prison in 2014.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2014/05/16/lets-not-forget-michael-alig-brutally-murdered-and-dismembered-angel-melendez-then-bragged-about-it-for-months/
Even if Desmond was not drugged - which seems unlikely, due to the above information - it was still potentially dangerous to allow Desmond to be around Michael Alig (being a murderer who drugged his own mother, and could potentially pass Hepatitis B to Desmond whether intentionally or unintentionally).
And a person who's crazy enough to drug his own mother, and give people diseases for fun, is probably crazy enough to use said drugs to lure a child into a more vulnerable state. Ketamine and rohypnol were reportedly Alig's favorite drugs.
This video, titled "Desmond is in Danger" - posted to YouTube in 2020 by AnnaMae Renee - explains the threats which Michael Alig, and Desmond's own mother Wendylou Napoles, might have posed to Desmond, while attending drag shows, while Desmond appeared in Episode #442 of the "Pee-ew" web show, hosted by Michael Alig and Ernie Glam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7J-hW_GO6o
During that episode, Ernie Glam presented Desmond with a stuffed panda toy, and a shirt with a panda face and black-and-white bars on it. It would be easy to argue that the black-and-white bars resembled prison bars. This is worth noting because "Panda eyes" is reputed to be a code phrase, used by pedophiles and/or other sexual predators, to refer to a victim of rape who has black eyes because they have been beaten by their rapist.
The Desmond controversy is not the only sex scandal in which pandas have popped up; Lady Gaga has worn panda eyes, the stuffed bear in the Balenciaga child model scandal was a panda, and pandas are associated with Elvis Presley (whose wife was underage when they met, and possibly also when they married).
Another possible code word - which connects Alig, Glam, and Lady Gaga - is "monster". Lady Gaga refers to her fans as "monsters" and her child fans as "little monsters". Michael Alig was the focus of the film Party Monster. Ernie Glam published a book called Dressing the Monster. The book, which is about fashion, was published in 2018, and bears the menacing subtitle "Party Clothes for the Club Kid Killer".
http://www.amazon.com/Dressing-Monster-Party-clothes-killer/dp/1986485757
In late December 2020 - two years after filming Episode #442 - Michael Alig died due to a drug overdose. Heroin and fentanyl were present in his system.
This means that Ernie Glam is likely the only person alive (except, perhaps, Desmond's mother) who knows, for sure, whether Michael Alig drugged Desmond Napoles, and whether he molested him.
It is not clear whether Desmond's mother Wendy has ever met Ernie Glam, or Michael Alig, or another transvestite male in whose presence Desmond mimed the snorting of a drug.
But at some point, Wendy Napoles must have allowed Ernie Glam, Michael Alig, or both, to take temporary (not legal) "custody" of Desmond, for long enough to film the episode. Either that, or Wendy Napoles was present when the video was filmed.
This means that, even if Wendy Napoles did not outright illegally decline to report sexual abuse of a child (which is a possibility), then she at least allowed her son to fall into the hands of people whom she reasonably should have known, would have been likely to abuse her son.
The author of the video mentioned above, believes that Desmond's mother may have allowed Michael Alig to prey on her son (or, at least, risked it) as part of a vain effort to regain her youth, and/or get into what is left of the New York City club scene.
Regardless of why she might have done it, if Desmond was molested or raped, then Wendy Napoles could - and should - be charged with reckless endangerment of her child. And, if she profited off of it, she could - and should - be charged with commercial exploitation of a child, and/or pimping (depending on the verbiage and definitions used in the jurisdictions in which those crimes may have occurred).
What happened to Desmond Napoles - i.e., possible drugging, molestation, and rape - is certainly not typical of children who cross-dress. Especially not children who cross-dress without adults first giving them the idea to do it. [The best place or a child to cross-dress is where that child will have privacy.]
But what happened to Nemis - i.e., being almost flashed, made to dance, and exposed to nudity - is typical of children who are exposed to cross-dressing by adults.
Furthermore, the idea that "drag can be for kids too" is being used to mask the possible child drugging and child rape that might have happened to Desmond "behind the scenes" after filming for the Pee-ew! web show with Michael Alig and Ernie Glam.
Drag can be for kids too. And there is nothing wrong with that idea, in and of itself.
Unless and until you start getting adults involved. And unless and until events focusing on children's sexuality become so widespread and predictable, that they literally become profitable shows.
At that point, pedophiles who want to see children dress in revealing clothing, can reliably predict where children will be groomed - or scantily-clad - for adults to watch, and where people will be off their guard about child protection.
And that is where child predators will strike. Not solely because that's where people are more "tolerant", but because that's where people are least suspicious.
Please see the infographic below, for more information about how the people mentioned above, are connected to each other, and to RuPaul.
[Notes about the infographic:
I do not intend to imply that Michael Musto is a pedophile.
Nor do I intend to imply, with any certainty, that RuPaul is a pedophile.
RuPaul said that he knew Alig, but didn't like him, and wrote in his first book that Alig spit into his mouth.
On the other hand, RuPaul did briefly consider creating adult and child versions of his hit show RuPaul's Drag Race.
http://www.out.tv/se_SE/news/rupaul-proposes-a-childrens-and-senior-version-of-drag-race/
The subject of whether RuPaul (and/or his show) is grooming children, needs to be researched further, before any conclusions on that matter can be drawn.
It is perhaps also worth noting that a former contestant of the show - Nina West (a male drag queen) - has written a book for children. The book is called The You Kind of You and it is about kindness.
http://celebsecrets.com/drag-queen-nina-west-is-spreading-kindness-in-her-new-childrens-book/
Additionally, there is a book, for children, about RuPaul. Written by Maria Isabel Sanchez Vegara, the book is called Little People, Big Dreams. It came out in 2020.
http://forreadingaddicts.co.uk/new-releases/new-childrens-book-about-rupaul-will-teach-children-about-drag-and-the-power-of-being-yourself/
It's unclear whether these books contain any material which could be described as questionable based on the books' target age groups.
As for Geraldo, it wouldn't be a stretch to describe him as a "pedophile enabler". That's because, in 2020, he made statements defending Ghislaine Maxwell (Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice and girlfriend). He said that Maxwell - accused of sex trafficking minors - should get out on bail.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-geraldo-rivera-ghislaine-maxwell-bail-20200715-uso6xym3s5dh5lr3vapnujka7u-story.html
Whether RuPaul and Geraldo are sympathetic towards child abusers or not, we should be asking ourselves, "Even if just a handful of people involved in drag are pedophiles, did we just accept the drugging and rape of a 10-year-old boy, as the price of normalizing children dressing in drag in front of adults?"
Additionally: "Are we willing to accept that price?"
Unfortunately, since Michael Alig (Desmond's possible rapist) is now dead, it seems that we do not have a choice in the matter.
Click on image, and open in new tab or window,
or download, in order to see in full resolution.
Written on January 18th, 2023.
Image created on January 18th, 2023.
Published on January 18th, 2023.
Wednesday, January 4, 2023
Infographic: These Are the People Who Pizzagate Deniers Want Us to Believe Are Not Pedophiles
Click on the image, and/or open it in a new tab or window,
or download and open, in order to see in full detail.
Image created on January 21st, 2022.
First posted to Facebook on January 21st, 2022.
Posted to this blog on January 4th, 2023.
Image created on January 21st, 2022.
First posted to Facebook on January 21st, 2022.
Posted to this blog on January 4th, 2023.
Monday, July 19, 2021
Why Are So Many of Miley Cyrus's Musical and Artistic Influences Pedophiles and Sexual Predators?
Click, open in new tab and/or window,
and/or download, to see in full resolution
Created and published on July 19th, 2021
Edited and Expanded on July 21st, 2021
Edited and Expanded on July 21st, 2021
Monday, May 17, 2021
Establishing a Typology of Potential Child Sexual Predators Based on Whether and Why They Offend
Introduction
I have written this article, and created the infographics below, in continuation of the research I published in my May 2021 article "Dismantling Five Myths About Child Molesters That Are Helping Them Evade Notice, Capture, and Judgment".
That article can be read at the following link:
The first infographic can be found in the original article, linked above.
The second infographic is new.
I have created this typology - consisting of eight categories of people, six of which are pedophiles and/or child molesters - for several reasons.
The primary reason is to clarify the distinctions between child molesters and pedophiles, and people who fit into both categories, and people who fit into neither. Another reason is to highlight the distinction between pedophiles who love children in one or more ways, versus predators who target children mostly out of feelings of hatred.
I believe that this is necessary, to establish an accurate nomenclature to describe predators who harm children sexually, but do not have either romantic feelings, nor feelings of sexual attraction, towards the children they victimize. The idea of calling such people "pedophiles" (which literally means "child lover") does not adequately describe them. [I have classified these people as Type 6; what I call the "Sadistic Abuser".]
I believe that this is necessary, to establish an accurate nomenclature to describe predators who harm children sexually, but do not have either romantic feelings, nor feelings of sexual attraction, towards the children they victimize. The idea of calling such people "pedophiles" (which literally means "child lover") does not adequately describe them. [I have classified these people as Type 6; what I call the "Sadistic Abuser".]
Of course, none of this is to imply, of course, that a person who molests a child because they love them, is necessarily any less dangerous than a person who molests a child because they hate them.
The purpose of this article is to caution parents that some people might pretend to love their kids in order to get close to them and harm them sexually, while while other people might pretend to hate their kids in order to get close to them and harm them sexually.
Love of children or hatred of children may be used, as someone's cover, for molesting children.
I believe that it will also be helpful - to police, criminal psychologists, and psychiatrists - to have a typology of potential child sex criminals, because these professions, and parents, should should be familiar with several paradoxes related to child molesters.
The first is that - as I explained in "Dismantling Five Myths About Child Molesters That Are Helping Them Evade Notice, Capture, and Judgment" - not all child molesters are pedophiles, and not all child molesters are pedophiles.
The second is that some people love children so much - including inappropriately - that they cannot bring themselves to molest a child; while other people hate children, and cannot bring themselves to molest a child due to that hatred, despite having a sexual attraction to children.
The former class of people is called "Righteous pedophiles" or non-offending pedophiles; which I have labeled as Type 1. The latter class of people may be rare, and may even not exist. But still, it's logically possible that there are child-attracted child-hating non-offenders. I have labeled that class as Type 2 (the "hateful pervert" or "repulsed non-offender").
Another important paradox to keep in mind - which is a major reason why I developed this typology - is that some child molesters feel romantic feelings, or even (what they would describe as) feelings of love, towards their victims and potential victims.
[Note: In the typology, I have grouped people with healthy affection towards children, together with people who develop romantic feelings towards children. I have only done this in order to distinguish those who have mostly hatred towards children, from those who have mostly love towards children. I do not mean to imply that romantic feelings towards children, and affection, are the same thing; I have only done this for the sake of simplicity. I welcome my readers' attempts to refine this typology and make it more precise.]
Some abusers even shower their victims with gifts, to manipulate them and stop them from coming forward about the abuse. This is particularly common in familial relationships which involve C.S.A. (child sexual abuse and/or assault). To cite a real-life example, Jeffrey Epstein paid for some of his victims to have housing and to get through college. Abusers like this use the fact that they have helped their victim, to get the victim to put up with more abuse.
It is important to remember that some offenders fall in love with their minor and child victims, because it helps us remember that someone who is especially affectionate towards children, could just as easily be a pedophile, as they could be a normal person.
Abuse does not always look like abuse. Sometimes it looks like a loving relationship. It's important to know the warning signs of abuse, to watch for them, and to think about what you have seen.
The former class of people is called "Righteous pedophiles" or non-offending pedophiles; which I have labeled as Type 1. The latter class of people may be rare, and may even not exist. But still, it's logically possible that there are child-attracted child-hating non-offenders. I have labeled that class as Type 2 (the "hateful pervert" or "repulsed non-offender").
Another important paradox to keep in mind - which is a major reason why I developed this typology - is that some child molesters feel romantic feelings, or even (what they would describe as) feelings of love, towards their victims and potential victims.
[Note: In the typology, I have grouped people with healthy affection towards children, together with people who develop romantic feelings towards children. I have only done this in order to distinguish those who have mostly hatred towards children, from those who have mostly love towards children. I do not mean to imply that romantic feelings towards children, and affection, are the same thing; I have only done this for the sake of simplicity. I welcome my readers' attempts to refine this typology and make it more precise.]
Some abusers even shower their victims with gifts, to manipulate them and stop them from coming forward about the abuse. This is particularly common in familial relationships which involve C.S.A. (child sexual abuse and/or assault). To cite a real-life example, Jeffrey Epstein paid for some of his victims to have housing and to get through college. Abusers like this use the fact that they have helped their victim, to get the victim to put up with more abuse.
It is important to remember that some offenders fall in love with their minor and child victims, because it helps us remember that someone who is especially affectionate towards children, could just as easily be a pedophile, as they could be a normal person.
Abuse does not always look like abuse. Sometimes it looks like a loving relationship. It's important to know the warning signs of abuse, to watch for them, and to think about what you have seen.
One way of visualizing the information
Click, and open in new tab or window, and download,
to see in full resolution.
Two Types of People Who Don't Harm Children Sexually and Don't Want To
1. Normal person with a healthy love for children
(shown in light green;
loves children emotionally but not romantically, not attracted to children sexually, does not offend)
1. Normal person with a healthy love for children
(shown in light green;
loves children emotionally but not romantically, not attracted to children sexually, does not offend)
2. Non-child-attracted non-pedophile child-hater, a/k/a "normal person" who hates children but doesn't sexually harm them
(shown in medium green;
does not love children emotionally nor romantically, not attracted to children sexually, does not offend)
Six Types of People Who Harm Children Sexually and/or May Want To
Type 1: "NON-OFFENDING PEDOPHILE" / "'RIGHTEOUS' PEDOPHILE"
(i.e., a non-offending child-attracted pedophile)
[shown in orange;
loves children emotionally and romantically. attracted to children sexually, does not offend]
This type of person is a pedophile, but not a child molester. This is sometimes called a "Righteous pedophile" (meaning a person who is sexually attracted to children but does not offend), or a non-offending pedophile. This type of person has inappropriate sexual feelings towards children, and also has romantic feelings and emotional attachments to children.
This type of pedophile loves children so much that it is inappropriate and sexual, but the intense emotional love of children also prevents the pedophile from offending against children in his or her lifetime. This type of pedophile often wishes that they weren't a pedophile, due to the conflicting feelings they have, being sexually attracted to children while also feeling love and compassion for them.
To clarify: The fact that someone qualifies as a "righteous pedophile" or "non-offending pedophile", or has been identified as such, does not necessarily mean that they will never offend. Some pedophiles will try to be "righteous pedophiles" who refrain from offending, but will fail. Those Type 1 Righteous Pedophiles who give into the temptation to offend, and hurt a child, will fall into the Type 3 category, the child-molesting child-attracted pedophile.
Type 2: "HATEFUL PERVERT" or "REPULSED NON-OFFENDER"
(i.e., a non-offending child-attracted child-hater)
[shown in brown;
does not love children emotionally nor romantically, attracted to children sexually, does not offend]
This type of person hates children and feels no emotional attachment to them, and is attracted to children sexually, but does not end up offending in their lifetime. Type 2 individuals are attracted to children sexually, but not emotionally, nor do they develop romantic feelings for children. It's possible that people in this category are too repulsed by their emotional hatred of children, to harm them in a sexual way.
This is not to say, however, that a Type 2 individual could never molest a child; Type 2 is just the class one falls under if one does not offend during one's lifetime, and is also sexually attracted to children, but not emotionally compassionate towards them. If a Type 2 "Hateful Pervert" or "Repulsed Non-Offender" commits a sex crime against a child, then that person becomes a Type 5 "Hateful Child Molester" or "Perverted Hateful Abuser".
Type 3: "CHILD-MOLESTING PEDOPHILE" / "CLASSIC PEDOPHILE" / "CHILD-LOVING ABUSER" / "CHILD-WOOING ABUSER"
(i.e., a child-molesting child-attracted pedophile)
[shown in light blue;
loves children emotionally and romantically, attracted to children sexually, does offend]
A Type 3 individual is both sexually attracted to children, and emotionally and/or romantically in love with one or more children. This type of person acts on their sexual and romantic feelings, and will often use those romantic feelings to justify the sexual urges they are feeling (i.e., romanticizing their feelings), and act on those feelings.
This type is probably more likely than the other types to be mentally ill or retarded, especially emotionally immature, and/or sexually immature in some way, which makes it difficult for them to relate to adults socially and sexually at the level at which one would expect a fully developed adult to interact.
A "Righteous Pedophile" or non-offending pedophile (Type 1) will become a Type 3, if that individual fails to refrain from harming a child sexually.
Type 4: "REPRESSED CHILD MOLESTER" / "TICKING TIME-BOMB ABUSER" / "UNWITTING ABUSER"
(i.e., a non-child-attracted child-molesting pedophile)
[shown in pink;
loves children emotionally, not consciously attracted to children sexually, does offend]
A Type 4 individual is not consciously attracted to children, and believes themselves to love children in a healthy way. But a Type 4 person is also an offending pedophile. A person who is abused as a child, and then forgets that abuse, and then finds oneself suddenly accused of molesting a child - and they have no idea why they did it, but are beginning to recover their own childhood memories of abuse - likely falls into the category of Type 4.
Such a person may be said to be subconsciously sexually attracted to children, due to their prior abuse. Due to their prior abuse, they may also have subconscious resentment, and/or survivor guilt, regarding children who have not suffered any sexual abuse. This may motivate them to find a victim, as a way to transfer the trauma they suffered.
Such a person may be said to be subconsciously sexually attracted to children, due to their prior abuse. Due to their prior abuse, they may also have subconscious resentment, and/or survivor guilt, regarding children who have not suffered any sexual abuse. This may motivate them to find a victim, as a way to transfer the trauma they suffered.
Type 5: "HATEFUL CHILD MOLESTER" / "PERVERTED HATEFUL ABUSER"
(i.e., a child-molesting, child-attracted non-pedophile)
[shown in medium blue;
does not love children emotionally nor romantically, attracted to children sexually, does offend]
This type of person hates children, and wants to harm them - sexually, and possibly also physically, and maybe other ways as well - due to that hate. Type 5 individuals do offend in their lifetimes, and violate children sexually due to both hatred and sexual attraction. Type 5 individuals do not feel any emotional attachment, nor romantic love, for children.
If a Type 2 "Hateful Pervert" or "Repulsed Non-Offender" commits a sex crime against a child, then that person becomes a Type 5 "Hateful Child Molester" or "Perverted Hateful Abuser".
Type 6: "SADISTIC CHILD MOLESTER" / "UNATTRACTED SADISTIC ABUSER"
(i.e., a non-child attracted child-hating child molester)
[shown in medium red;
does not love children emotionally nor romantically, not attracted to children sexually, does offend]
This type of person hates children, and wants to harm them due to that hate. Type 6 individuals do not feel any emotional attachment, nor romantic love, for children. Although Type 6 individuals are not sexually attracted to children, they commit sex crimes against children for reasons of power and control - and in order to take advantage of children's vulnerability - rather than due to sexual attraction or romantic or emotional interest.
If a person who hated children were on the track to becoming a Type 6 "Sadistic Abuser" - but somehow managed to avoid offending against any children during their lifetime - then that person would belong to the non-pedophilic type which I have shown in medium green in the infographics; that is, a so-called "normal" person who hates children (and is not sexually attracted to them).
If a person who hated children were on the track to becoming a Type 6 "Sadistic Abuser" - but somehow managed to avoid offending against any children during their lifetime - then that person would belong to the non-pedophilic type which I have shown in medium green in the infographics; that is, a so-called "normal" person who hates children (and is not sexually attracted to them).
Conclusion
I hope that a deeper and more detailed understanding about the various and overlapping causes of pedophilic attraction, will lead to proper diagnoses regarding typology of potential child sexual predators.
I also hope that this typology will be helpful in designing psychiatric treatment specialized towards each particular type of pedophile and potential offender. The wrong diagnosis, or the wrong cure, could make the problem worse.
As I have explained, for some people, hating children keeps them from offending, while for others, loving children keeps them from offending. Therapies for each given condition, should reflect an awareness of these facts.
[Note:
It may also be useful to establish a typology of potential child sexual predators, based on whether they are: 1) attracted to men, women, or both; and 2) whether they are exclusively attracted to minors, or are attracted to both minors and adults.]
Images created, article written, and blog entry published
on May 17th, 2021
Edited and Expanded on May 24th, 2021
Edited and Expanded on May 24th, 2021
Saturday, May 8, 2021
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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 20th 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).
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).
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.
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"
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."
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.
"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.
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.
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"
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
To see the above image in greater detail and expand it, click on it, and open it in a new tab or window. To see a higher-q... -
Click, and/or open in new tab or window, to enlarge Image created in September 2019 Originally Published on September 23rd, 20... -
Texas Congressman Ron Paul and consumer advocate Ralph Nader Social Libertarianism is the answer to Fascism. Whereas Fascism em...