Majority of people believe in non offending pedophiles

This is a study that surveyed peoples belifes on a variety of pedophilia related topics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350102408_Could_a_Dunkelfeld-Style_Program_Work_in_New_York_State

Obviously I think that this is really good news. I thought the number of people who believed in non offending pedophiles would be much lower, and nearly every one supported a prevention project.

4 Likes

This is good news, very good news.

I am somewhat skeptical about the 98.8% in favor for the New York prevention project. Seems too high too high in context of the prior statistics.

I don’t know who they conducted this study on compared to the others so that probably makes up for the differances in the data.

Nobody with a brain in their skull when you explain the difference between attraction and behavior still believes that everyone with an attraction harms kids. People aren’t that stupid. What they believe about people with that attraction is another story.

1 Like

Such a platform wouldn’t have meaning if a common definition for “CSA” is not established, one that acknowledges adult-child sexual activity as a form of abuse with inherent harm.

Such views, in and of themselves, can be easily defined as a “proclivity to offend” despite the risk of doing so being relatively low compared to those who lack a primary sexual interest in children, in the sense that they’d be “open” to it, should it be allowed.

Pro-contact idealism really is a regressive, selfish, and detrimental worldview to have, and it only emboldens and validates the prejudices of those who would rather suppress/harm others using child safety as their license to do so.

2 Likes

The program is specifically for "These individuals subscribe to anti-contact/non-offending views toward child sexual abuse (CSA) and Child Sexually Exploitative Materials (CSEM)
(Slide 3)

So it is anti contact

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350102405_Tenbergen_et_al_ATSA_Talk_2020_updated_1

Very far from the ideal scenario, but I guess that’s better than nothing. :thinking:

It makes sense if you think about it.

If the phrase “child sex abuse” is to have any legitimate meaning, then a common definition has to be established, and one that’s not arbitrary or bound solely in ‘morality’.

I’ll agree that, whether or not you have a contact stance, you’re entitled to receive help or therapy, but they have to be wiling to abandon that contact stance.

1 Like

I am strictly anti-contact, but I have my doubts that this would be an effective policy. Putting myself in that position I don’t think that I would be open to therapy if I had to give up one of my core beliefs in order to even qualify, and it would probably just make me believe in that even more strongly (I’m stubborn like that…). There is also some evidence to suggest that people who are forced to give up their pro-contact stance are more likely to develop psychological problems, which makes setting this as the prime therapeutic goal ethically questionable at least.

I read somewhere a proposal for a different approach: being respectful and accepting while trying to find a common ground. For instance, many people who believe that sex between adults and children is not inherently harmful still abide by the law because they realize that in the current society the chance of harm to themselves and the children through persecution is too high. I feel that this is a more promising therapeutic approach - after all who cares what they believe might be hypothetically possible in some distant utopia, as long as they don’t harm anyone in this actual reality?

1 Like

It’s a complicated issue that I will admit is questionable, but a big part of therapy is being willing to adjust parts of yourself in order for it to be effective.

I’d like to see some of that research. It seems like a strange thing to research, unless it’s more broad and has to do with forcefully adjusting one’s beliefs.

I’ll see if I can find it again. From what I remember it was not the main focus of the research, but rather something they found along the way.

Personally, I don’t find that too hard to believe. In my experience, many pro-contacters have made their pro-contact believs a central part of their identity.

As a pedophile there are basically two ways out of shame, self-hate and feeling like a horrible monster: either realizing that attraction is not action and that just being attracted to something that would be horrible to act on does not make you a bad person if you don’t act on it - or telling yourself that the attraction would not be harmful even if acted on. I find it plausible that it could have a negative psychological impact on someone who chose the latter way when they are forced to give up these believes.

It’s a delicate matter that should receive more research imo, because if that’s true than it could possibly be that trying to get people to give up their pro-contact beliefs could increase their likelihood for abuse by psychologically destabilizing them, and the idea of finding a compromise that most of all involves not abusing children might be a more fruitful approach.