Why is Pedophilia the exception?

We are constantly being bombarded by the alphabet people, adding an additional letter every time I look. I believe we just add a plus sign at the end now for “watch this space”, further letters to be announced.

To me what’s more interesting is the letters clearly missing from the alphabet and to date not intending to be included by the plus sign. The most prevalent and obvious is Heterosexuality.
On the assumption that we are dealing with only two biological genders, this leaves us with only three other potential combinations. Those that find the amorous advances of the male a little overbearing, those that find the ambivalence of the female a little disappointing, and those that like a little of both.

The implied assumption of LGBH is that we are talking about the interaction between two consenting humans. The obvious expansion of the alphabet is then what if one of the participants is not a “consenting” adult human, or for that matter not a human at all? I believe that there is ample evidence that these sexual preference options have been around since humans have been on earth, and clearly referenced in the Bible.

First off, I find it interesting that the alphabet did not head down this obvious path. These are clearly tangible options that exist in the real biological world and have been around forever, no medical procedures or hormonal interventions required. Instead, we decided to head down the less practical and far more confusing path of challenging the assumption that we are only faced with two gender options. That is clearly destined for failure on so many fronts, the simplest of which is that playing around with gender still only leaves you with the four sexual preference options. My question is when this happens, and eventually LGB and H embrace to exclude T (which I believe is inevitable, just not sure of timing), are we destined to head down the other more obvious path?

Pedophilia is the obvious and more interesting one. This appears to be as hard wired in certain individuals as the other LGBH combinations. This preference is also believed to be discovered, not chosen, and no amount of treatment or discouragement appears to have an impact. Pedophiles are for life.

So why are we universally unsympathetic and unaccepting of this option? This is in a society in which elective abortion and gender affirming in prepubic children is acceptable to many. I venture to suggest that these latter two options are far more impactful on the wellbeing of the future adult than early exposure to sex.

Why this universal exception, and is it likely to be under review in the near future? Can we learn from this consensus, or proactively prepare for this potential future development?

1 Like

I generally don’t watch Libs of TikTok, but I did catch a particularly prominent headline on Twitter as part of a quote tweet where a college professor was talking about minor attracted persons as a means of ‘destigmatising’ pedophilia! I do have some sympathy for Romeo and Juliet clauses- where two teenage kids fool around and neither are adults, I think it’s unduly cruel to stick the teenage boy on a sex offenders list over the long-term.

But we have to remember the age old imperatives of Dynastic breeding and the primordial laws of human natural reality they were based upon. Although marriages might be arranged at very young ages and the ceremonies might occur in the teen years, in practice they weren’t consummated until around 15 years old, for the simple reason that pregnancy before a certain age carried profound risks. There were exceptions. In some instances a House desperate for a male heir might try at 13 to 14, but this usually occurred when the ‘wife’ in question possessed a land inheritance but didn’t bring familial alliances to the marriage. In this case, her death during childbirth would transfer the land, whilst simultaneously opening up the husband to secure further inheritances or alliances through subsequent marriages…

If anything, when we look at around the world age of consent laws are set somewhat too low- especially given that we now know that kids growing up in more developed nations tend to develop more slowly physically, and more importantly, emotionally and cognitively. 14 is too young in the modern world, and those countries which set the arbitrary age at 16 probably have it right.

As previously mentioned, I would make exceptions for ‘Romeo and Juliet’ scenarios. I lost my virginity somewhat before the age of consent with a girl in the same year as me, who plied me with peach schnapps before having her wicked way with me. By this, I don’t mean that police shouldn’t keep records of teenage boys who have sex early, and I’m not opposed to a wrap of the knuckles especially as means of redressing the concerned of parents- apart from anything else we know from the data that 50% of active paedophiles targeting under age girls are under 25- so it’s well worth heading off the pathology before it develops- but active monitoring/publishing of a kid on a sex offenders list simply because he happened to have consensual sex with a girl the same age as him when he was 15 seems a bit extreme and unduly stigmatising.

The answer is sometimes. There are some genetic paedophiles, but they aren’t anywhere near the totality. It’s also well established the some paedophiles falsely claim that they themselves were abused as children as a means of justifying their behaviour. But as far as I am aware the pathology can also emerge from aberrant psychology with no real causative root.

The best option would be to build them monasteries far away from civilisation and temptation, and secure their confinement with the use of ankle bracelets and other monitoring technologies. As you say, it’s a permanent to semi-permanent problem. In the interests of public safety and to the relief of parents everywhere, it might be worth designing a somewhat more humane solution, with the condition that we make the sentences lifelong.


According to that fountain of knowledge Wikipedophilia, to qualify the minor has to be under 16, the perpetrator at least 16 and at least 5 years older than the minor.

That should cover you and Romeo retrospectively.

1 Like

Your compassionate side is starting to show through …

1 Like

Anyone who harms children will always (at least in the western world) be considered more odious than others. Its bad to be a murder, but its worse to be a child murderer. Bad to be a rapist, but worse to be a child rapist. Take almost any personal crime and add the word “child” in front of it and it always increases the pejorative connotation.

This is the other problem with it. The word “pedophile” itself. While in a clinical setting it means to have a strong sexual impulse towards children. However in practical usage it means “Someone who has acted on these impulses”. This dichotomy of meaning causes a lot of confusion. Even within the setting and context of your question I am not entirely certain which definition you are using.

This is a regrettable state of affairs for people who are sexually attracted to children yet recognize it as wrong and never act on their feelings. In my opinion, compassion for such people would be a net good to society. But can this be achieved while also maintaining societies revulsion towards those who have acted on their impulses? I am doubtful.

A new word other than “pedophile” to describe the second group could be useful. However even here I am doubtful. The euphemism treadmill would inevitably doom the new word to pejorative usage.


Acted on. In the same context that homosexuality and adultery might only apply to action not desire. My wife might not be please if I look elsewhere, but its a totally different matter if I touch.

I think “-philia” just means “love of” something. “audiophiles” love their tunes, probably on vinyl. Does the term imply or require “hard-wired”?

I think society frowns upon this (and rightly so, IMO) because of the age of consent, or not having yet reached it. But I agree with @Geary_Johansen2020 that there should be some near-age exceptions…there is no crime simply with 2 middle-school kids doing some mutually-agreed to exploration.


An adult who messes around with someone’s kids risks unleashing an enraged parent with a shotgun. This is good. Viva la twelve-gauge!

My heart goes out to kids where the molester is a family member, and therefore (I assume) more likely to be successful and less likely to face an enraged parent.

An interesting area here involves teachers, particularly female teachers, having sex with their students. The media treads very lightly here, I suspect because teachers are a favored class.


Ever wonder whether looking up the wrong thing on Google produces flags forwarded to Law Enforcement? I do. I hope they take the time to realise that these types of discussions are academic…

1 Like

Compassion tempered by a deeply pragmatic desire to see greater public safety. Think of all the time and effort put into exonerating Death Row inmates on the grounds of moral objections. Often these are known murderers and the legal issues are technicalities. People would tend to put less effort into reversing decisions which result in humane incarceration.

I did think of one problem with the monastery solution. Originally I thought the model might become somewhat self-sustaining, but unless the authorities are quite careful with branding, or supply to existing suppliers on plain notes and labels for rebranding- nobody is going to want paedophile wines, beers and cheeses!

1 Like

Interesting, I actually was figuring you were using the clinical definition. Confusing indeed! :slight_smile:

In any event then, most of what I wrote is likely not relevant.

Looking to the future I do fear that societies tolerance will increase. And it will be the folks on the Right who are at fault. Generally it is my feeling that the Left has trouble recognizing age-inappropriate sexuality. However now that the Right has begun labeling anyone they disagree with as a “child sex groomer”, I suspect we will see accusations of age-inappropriate sexuality begin to get devalued. In much the same way as accusations of racism are devalued by the Left’s constant baseless accusations.


Yup. The tendency is for going the way of ingroup/outgroup, ‘othering’, and similar related false dichotomies.


Male teachers are treated a lot differently. I think the laxity in relation to female teachers tends to result from vestigial male teenage fantasies about our favourite MILF teachers!


Hence my proposal for this topic. Why when I search for
Is paedophilia really that bad - do I risk getting flagged,
but I have to invert this and ask is transexual behavior really such a good idea - to get the same result?
Something appears to be inherently different in how these two concepts are perceived (neither of which make any sense to me).

1 Like

It might just be an urban myth I’ve bought into, but I certainly wouldn’t google “yellow” and “cake” as 1 word.


In second grade, at Lourdes Academy in Ellensburg, WA, I noticed that the young nun teaching us had a sliver of long light brown hair that had escaped from her head-gear/what-ever-it’s-called.

A fascinating turn-on for a second-grader!


Indeed there is a definite double standard. Just take the song below as an example.

Now listen to it again with a female vocalist.

The the lyrics are identical. However the connotations of a girl going to see her male teacher “after school” sounds a lot more predatory on the part of the teacher. When sung by David Lee Roth the connotation instead shifts to more of a harmless schoolboy fantasy.


Speaking from experience, I can say that googling the word “Genderfuck” can cause the advertising algorithms to make certain unwanted assumptions.

1 Like

Is this the case of 2 wrongs cancelling each other out and is it starting to permeate into the rest of society? Sexual indiscretion between a male and a female. Males fault. Sexual indiscretion between a person in authority and a subordinate. Person in authorities fault. Sexual indiscretion between an adult an a minor. Adults fault. In the past 100 000 years these 3 dimensions have been primarily coincident - even I can resolve this. Hang on, the 3 dimensions are not coincident? Is there an inherent hierarchy? Does intent have to be taken into consideration? So the teacher is female and 20, her pupil is about to turn 16, and destined for high office in France …


Well the trans issue is a direct product of wilful ignorance. Most who support the notion of trans kids seem to be of the opinion that every step is taken to ensure that the trans kids actually do have gender dysphoria and said gender dysphoria is acute and irremediable through puberty and/or counselling. Nothing could be further from the truth- we are in the midst of a humanitarian tragedy. At least in the UK, there is some laudable pushback, perhaps triggered by the resignation of over 40 medical professionals from the Tavistock clinic and cases like that of Keira Bell. It’s led the activist to describe the UK as TERF island- history will note it as a badge of pride.

Speaking of which did you see Jordan Peterson’s vitriolic pushback against Twitter:

As a lover of the English Language, the thing which really irks me is the Left’s deliberately narrow construal of groomer. The word can and is applied more broadly- otherwise gang grooming wouldn’t be a thing. They know exactly what they’re up to. A part of me wonders whether the urge to expose children to sex early might be because gender ideology has ham-fistedly taken the deeply flawed Doll test and transposed it to try and counter homophobia.