• DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Isn’t pedophilia just the attraction, not necessarily acting on it? I don’t think people should be punished (especially not with the death penalty) based on thoughts alone. There should have to be some action.

    • TrooBloo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yes, and we should really be using much more direct and affecting terms like “child rapist” and “child sex trafficker” to describe people like the president. It’s less euphemistic. Calling a person who has raped children a “pedophile” seems like minimization to me.

    • Pika@rekabu.ru
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 days ago

      Absolutely.

      Besides, I don’t get why the correct terms like “child abuser/molester/rapist” are used so infrequently. They are strong enough and they represent the nature of a crime much better.

    • village604@adultswim.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      Exactly. Being attracted to children isn’t something a person chooses. It’s essentially a fetish, although one that no one should ever partake in. Anyone who wants to get help to make sure they never act on it should be able to, especially since a decent chunk were victims themselves.

      But once they act on it, they’re predators who need to be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

    • ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      It’s a diagnosis and there are clinical criteria. The term is used inaccurately more often then not. While colloquial and domain definitions often differ, I think I agree with the other commenter: the language people use should be more direct and visceral.