MovieChat Forums > Hard Candy (2006) Discussion > How many viewers know what a paedophile ...

How many viewers know what a paedophile is? How many care?


A paedophile is a person who finds prepubescent boys or girls sexually attractive, but you wouldn't know it if you watched this film or listened to a news reporter or even the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The word is widely misused to mean child molester or just generally sex offender who targets under 18s and in a film that's centred around a person's torture and eventual suicide, it's pretty important that we're clear on what we mean when we say "he's a pedophile".

This is actually is very serious problem that few people, it seems, have given thought to. Because most people don't differentiate between a child molester and a person who simply has the attraction, many people are misdirecting their hatred towards anybody with the condition rather than those who have actually abused children. This is passionate hatred of any adult who finds a child attractive is obviously not rightly earned because nobody has any choice in what looks attractive to them - it was no more anybody here's decision not to find children attractive than it was another's decision to be a paedophile.

Something few people are aware of is the suffering of teenagers who are discovering their sexual orientation like everybody else and find they are attracted to children. Many young people in that situation struggle with immense guilt, shame, and conflict because of the seething hatred of paedophiles - hatred of the condition rather than hatred of the act of child abuse. The situation gets even worse when you take a look at what just about every person's advice would be to somebody who discovers that they find children attractive, "Get help!".

If you were a paedophile, how comfortable and safe would you feel telling another person about it? And that's just it - most will never open up and tell anybody about it and that includes doctors or therapists. There are people who have actually abused children who might not have done had they sought and received help - the environment we have created is *terrible* when it comes to preventing sexual abuse! We need to see the madness we've been perpetuating and treat it as we do every other psychological condition - we *help* people with the condition, we don't hate them and strike fear into them!

The reality is that most paedophiles do not sexually offend, not all are even in need of therapy as a person's sexuality (set of attractions) cannot be changed, all that can be treated is a person's urges to solicit sex and many paedophiles do not struggle with any such urges.

We are currently in the stage the Victorians were in when they feared, hated, and punished schizophrenics. Now we understand that it's senseless to hate a person for having an illness and we treat it humanely and intelligently. There is no such thing as a "defence of paedophilia" just as there is no "defence of schizophrenia" - it's an unchosen condition, it can't be morally judged.

If we insist on satisfying torture fantasies and relishing thoughts of violence and murder then at least we should be clear that we're directing these at people who have raped or murdered children (murdering a child is far more the act of a rapist than a child molester acting out of attraction - the Jeff character in real life would likely not be a paedophile at all, not that the creators seemed to care) - I find such vengeance to be barbaric and beneath us as human beings, I understand the emotions but to wish for it is a very ugly, dark and disturbing thing, I find.

The Jeff character was worthy of hatred but not because "he'd a pedophile" - because he was a rapist and a murderer. If we don't bother to differentiate between the two then more and more people will continue to suffer - innocent adults and innocent children.

reply

As a victim of child abuse myself (and i was a child - 5,6,7 years old) I'm surprised I agree with part of this. I don't agree with people comparing to homosexuality AT ALL. But, it's like if someone has homicidal thoughts, wouldn't you rather them talk to a therapist before taking a gun to school? There could be some counselling they could to change their thinking. To let them know this thinking is wrong.

If a person wants to correct their unsavoury thoughts, surely we would prefer that than for them to remain silent about it and act on their thoughts?

Even if someone just has the thoughts and doesn't act on it, they ARE still doing the wrong thing (morally, obviously not legally). We should encourage people to talk about ANY kinds of bad thoughts they have; murder, abuse of any kind, hurting themselves, arson, drug-use. ANYTHING that can be damaging to one self or to others shouldn't be taboo. That is part of what causes societys issues.

For example, if the guy who hurt me when I was a kid had maybe said to his mom (he was quite young) that he was thinking about touching young girls, maybe he could have got some counselling and never have hurt me (or other people i know were hurt too).

So yes, we should encourage people to talk about things before acting on them. It doesn't mean THEY are a victim, it means hopefully they'll realise that if they DON'T get help, they'll create victims.

I get its a hard topic to approach, but it's got to be a better life outlook to think that people can be helped out of dark thoughts than just give in and accept that these people will keep hurting kids (or anyone else) because as a society, we won't even attempt to think we can help the KIDS. DOn't think of it as helping the potential abuser, think of it as helping the potential victims.

reply

Actually, most pedophiles are not child molesters.
This is incorrect. Some pedophiles view children directly. Most look on the internet or deep web for photos of young children. Even if they never take one photo themselves, they're accessories to the crime of the photographers. How did those guys get the photos, who were all those children? Someone had to set it up. Are the pedophile apologists here saying there are "ethical pedos" that never cause any child to be harmed or exploited??

I'll be blunt here. I once helped fight in an online war against admitted pedophiles who were using images of babies and toddlers from cloth-diapering stores online for sexual gratification. This led to finding the larger sites with many varieties of photos. They are an eager bunch that will stop at NOTHING to get their hands on the material that gratifies them. To the point of marrying women and having children for the sole purpose of exploiting them. The leaders of those sites were raising a "herd" of girls and boys on a communal farm, with their mothers raising the kids while the men were taking photo requests from the pedos and filling them. The most common request, as in 1000s of pics, was "4-6 year old with droopy, wet cloth diaper."

Now tell me pedophiles don't "hurt" anyone. *beep*

This movie has nothing whatsoever to do with pedophilia. It's a story about two people doing things they know are wrong, for their own reasons.

reply

Yah, and some abstain from their compulsions completely. You do realize there are voluntary support groups for people that are emotionally and sexually attracted to children, but would never act on it regardless of the legal ramifications because they're not chicken hawking rapacious predators. A 30 second google search (had to be very careful with the wording as Big Brother is watching) implied as much.

reply

Amen, the sadistic *beep* who get off on torturing and killing "rapists" and "child predators" are actually sicker than both put together. Nothing worse than murder. And no amount of self-righteous indignation will make your sick bloodlust for death "okay".

reply

Thanks for the explanation, NAMBLA member.

reply

How many know? Not many. How many care? Even less.

reply

So according to the OP, if we actually correctly distinguish between the two definitions, that would actually make the world a better place and will reduce the ACTUAL instances of child sexual abuse as such to a bigger extent than punishment of the perpetrators?

And in such an emotional topic and such powerful thoughts, well, you are able to think like this rationally and without panic and say - that is the case?

Also, where I come from, Russia for instance, the terms are very much synonymous with each other.

Also interesting is how, well, such different terms and stances don't exist say for murder or the sexual abuse of adults, but how much about it do we either know or NEED to know BEYOND the basics and beyond thinking how deeply evil, for one, it all is?

reply