Friday, February 1, 2013

Stephanie Miller Show Combats Conflation of Homosexuality and Pedophilia

The issue of whether or not gays be allowed in the Boy Scouts of America as volunteers or members, has sparked much conflation by idiots of homosexuality and pedophilia. On some levels, it's understandable that the issue of pedophilia can inspire visceral knee-jerk reactions. But, it is long past time for this debunked conflation to be common knowledge as false.

Obviously, pedophiles would be drawn to occupations or activities where they will have the opportunity to indulge their criminal behaviors. And, also obviously, there are pedophiles who focus on kids of their own gender, opposite gender, or any gender, depending upon the offender. However, the perpetrator's sexual orientation may or may not line up with that. For instance, many, many pedophiles who prey on boys do so because of opportunity, it being much more likely that they can be in a position of power over boys than with girls. Also, many, many of those perpetrators consider themselves to be heterosexual, indeed often having wives and families. Jerry Sandusky--for example--considered himself heterosexual, and would not have been screened out by the "no gays allowed" policy of the BSA. [Story continues below]

Equally obviously, we do not attach a social stigma to heterosexual men, even though there are more heterosexual male offenders in rape and pedophilia cases then any other demographic. The conflation of gay men with pedophilia is only due to the inability of many to see the difference between healthy, consenting adult behavior, over criminal, harmful behaviors against children. It isn't right, it isn't true, and it isn't fair.

On Friday morning, a caller to Talking Liberally: The Stephanie Miller Show (on Current TV and radio), claiming to have "nothing against" gay people, knee-jerked his way through an incredibly misinformed rant. Fortunately, the talented (and quite funny, even with this kind of serious subject) crew of Stephanie Miller--including Steph herself, Chris LaVoie, Jim Ward and John Fugelsang--took the caller's arguments apart, and hopefully educated some people along the way. Thanks, guys.


  1. This is a note to say that a Twitter follower rebutted my above argument on a Tumblr page. That can be found here:

    The attempt at argument tries to posit that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. It isn't it's more akin to a fetish. A dangerous fetish that fetishizes people unable to legally consent. I can have sympathy for a person finding themselves with this troubling fixation, but no, I do not in any way condone or support pedophilia.

  2. After a bit of back-and-forth on Twitter with the "pedosexual," I ended up blocking him. This isn't a subject that is open for discussion, in my opinion. If you are turned on by stuffed animals or toasters, who cares? Freaky, but no harm, no foul. But kids? Off limits. Not a viable option, no way, no how. And if you find yourself--I don't know, so afflicted?--you certainly don't EMBRACE such a trait, and lobby for tolerance. You're not going to get it. To me, it's just a time bomb waiting to go off. I don't claim to have the answer for how to fix it, but I know THAT ain't it.

  3. Hey, Just to chime in as a person who treats problem sexual behaviors for a're wrong. Pedophilia is mental disorder (DSM IV code 302.2) and not a fetish (which would generally be 302.9). It's also not the same thing as being a child abuser. In fact, the most common factor in child sexual abuse is substance abuse, not pedophilia; and, there are many pedophiles who never abuse a child. The attraction to minors, sadly, cannot be eliminated. All we can do is help these tortured people control their behavior. In fact, since over 50% of these crimes are committed by re-offenders, treatment is the best thing we can do to protect potential victims. If we can learn to accept pedophiles as a group then they will feel more open to seek out treatment.

  4. Thanks, anonymous, I appreciate the input. I can't really agree that we should "accept" pedophiles, but I'll be the first to say that I don't claim to know WHAT should be done with them. What I meant by "more akin to a fetish" is that a pedophile is fixated on young people, in the same way that a foot fetishist is fixated on feet. I wasn't trying to be clinical, only illustrating that a fixation is different from a sexual orientation.

  5. James, I understand what you are saying about the fetish similarity but it's not quite that simple, unfortunately. I also want to just give you one last thing to consider. Pedophilia is a mental illness, just like Schizophrenia and Depression. No one asks for any of those disorders and most people with them would like to be rid of them if possible. It's not really appropriate to say you would not accept a person with Depression; and it's also inappropriate to say you wouldn't accept a person with Pedophilia. Persons with pedophilia are not inherently evil or criminal people, nor are they inherently more likely than you or I to sexually abuse a child. These are conclusively proven facts, not opinions or beliefs. I know you were hurt by a person who you believe was a pedophile, but even if he/she was, harboring a prejudice against all persons with Pedophilia is like harboring a prejudice against all people of the same race, gender, or age. Those factors didn't make your abuser more likely to hurt you and neither did Pedophilia. I know that may sound shocking, but it is factual. I'm sorry for what happened to you. I just needed to make sure this information was shared.

  6. All right, I take your point. But my main point here is valid also: pedophilia and homosexuality are unrelated, and thus should not be conflated. Yes?

    My Twitter discussion with the self professed and seemingly proud pedophile was disturbing to me. He was seemingly piggy-backing on the gay rights movement, attempting to obtain "acceptance" for the "sexual orientation" of pedophilia as a movement, which is what got me into this tangent in the comments.

    Now, what is the conclusively proven evidence that shows that pedophiles are no more likely to abuse a child than *I* am? Because that sounds extremely unlikely to me.

  7. i don't have the research sitting right in front of me to cite but you can find some of it at, or google it. However, this is a good way to think of it without getting into the research: Pedophilia is an attraction, just like a sexual orientation or a fetish. So a pedophile is no more likely to rape or molest a child than a foot fetishist is to rape or molest a person with "sexy feet" or a homosexual is to rape a person of their own gender or heterosexual person is to rape a person of the opposite gender.

    It's JUST an attraction. Attractions are not the same as behaviors.

  8. Here's where I find it different enought to worry about (especially when you use a phrase like "just like a sexual orientation":

    I'm gay. I'm attracted emotionally and physically to people of my own gender, and not to the opposite sex. The only way for me to experience a happy sex and love life is to express that attraction, as it happens with my husband, whome I've been with for 15 years. While I'm often berated by politicians and Chic-fil-A diners for my "lifestyle," I'm hurting no one, and have a right to a life that will make me happy. If I had a foot fetish, my husband would probably tolerate it. Still, no one is harmed.

    I do not believe there are people who are sexually oriented toward only children. If they WERE, I'd be doubly alarmed, because then you're telling me that the only way they can feel fulfilled in life is to express that attraction similarly to what I said above. Which cannot be consensual, and is therefore illegal as well as wrong. Or, they have to supress their "orientation" for their entire lives, which doesn't sound realistic to me.

    If it's less than an orientation as I posited, and more like a fixation, than such a person could be gay, straight or bi, but with a particular fascination for young people. I'm still creeped out, even typing it, but that is less alarming. But as I said before, if you really like feet, or dressing as a furry animal, or cross-dressing, or have a penchant for inanimate objects. . .expressing that attraction might be WEIRD, but is ultimately harmless. The attraction to kids can't be expressed without causing real problems.

    How do you "accept" or "tolerate" something that when taken to its logical conclusion causes damage? You stated earlier that it's a mental disorder, and I agree. I just don't see how tolerance or acceptance is the right position, though. I don't know WHAT the answer is, but that is an idea that is very, very unlikely to fly with the general public either.

  9. Well, actually, there are some people attracted only to children, it's called Pedophilia (exclusive type). And it is very unfortunate, but yes the reality is these people will never find a truly happy sexual or intimate relationship. But whether you believe it or not, people do live this way. You are assuming that pedophilia's logical conclusion is child abuse, but it isn't. It's actually loneliness, social rejection, self-loathing, and often depression. That mostly hurts just the pedophile, and I feel very badly for such a tortured individual. I do understand it's hard for people in the general public to understand but that is because people are conflating pedophilia with child abuse (which was SRP's original point).

    I'm curious why you believe child abuse IS the logical conclusion?

  10. The answer to your question is that people ARE likely to express their innate sexual attractions where possible to do so. If a person were ONLY attracted to kids, not adults of either gender, and they have to squelch that for their entire lives? Then they're stuck between two extremely undesirable end points. And they live with a lifetime of temptation that can't ever be fulfilled without damaging somebody, perhaps irreperably.

    I'm still having trouble believing that there are so-oriented people, though. It implies that habitual rapists, for example, are oriented toward rape. . .doesn't it? Or am I missing something? I mean, there are other -phelias, such as necrophelia, objectophelia, zoophelia. These people are not generally understood to be ONLY sexually attracted to dead people, inanimate objects and animals, are they? As I tried to say before, it's their kink, their fetish. No?

    It's sounds as though you have an agenda. What is your ultimate solution for the issue? How do you think society should react to pedophiles? How do you tolerate people who are almost certainly AT LEAST going to be leering at kids? How do you ignore the reality of not just direct abuse, but kiddie porn and the like?

  11. I don't have an agenda. I'm just someone working in the field who tries to correct misunderstanding when I can. As for fetishes, actually many necrophiliacs are only attracted to dead people because they are terrified of the rejection a living partner could offer them. You cannot reject such things as real simply because they seem unlikely or unpleasant to you.

    I do not suggest that abuse or child pornography be ignored. Not at all. I think such things should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But again, not all pedophiles engage in such things. Few pedophiles leer at kids. If they did, we would notice a lot more often. I think we as a society should react with compassion and try to understand that pedophiles did not ask to feel this way and often wish the feelings would go away. In fact by reducing the social stigma, pedophiles will feel more comfortable seeking treatment and coming out to people they know. That actually means LESS kids get abused because we have a better idea who to keep our children protected from. I recommend checking this prevention plan from the Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute:

  12. I appreciate your input, and any readers' input really. And I don't hold myself out to be an expert on anything, I even have a mission statement here on the blog that says the very same. I'm a hobbyist blogger, not a journalist. And I will concede that I have only had psychology classes in high school and one in college, and that was many moons ago.

    But I know what it is to have a sexual orientation. I know--even as a very awkward and shy person--that I could not ignore it for my entire life. I lived a fairly lonely 20s, but I got my act together, and society be damned, I found a love and sex life! I also know that to this day, as a 40-something married man, I'm still checking out other guys. Can't help it, happens every single time I see a handsome guy. You get more subtle and sly about it as you age, but you do it. So, maybe "leer" is too active of a word. . .Ogle? Cruise? Fantasize? When the object of your desire is incapable of consent, the end result is "creepy," no matter what word is used.

    I have known exactly one self-professed, abstinent "child attracted" man. He was kind of creepy all on his own, without having that knowledge of him. But the deal was sealed when he saw a portrait of myself at 5 years old, and said, "Ooh, wish I'd known you then. . ." Talk about shivers.

    So, thanks for your input. And YES, it is better to know WHO the potential threats are, I suppose. But do you really think you'll ever be able to convince the public? I mean, I'm a gay liberal with no children, and I still get a serious wiggins at the thought of the subject. How would you fare with straight people. . .with kids? I don't think tolerance and acceptance is realistic.

  13. Everyone is different in terms of what they are willing to understand and accept. I am a straight person with kids and I can understand that attraction does not require behavior. I understand that people can survive without meaningful relationships and sexual encounters. Lots of people live this way, not just exclusive pedophiles.


Have something to say to us? Post it here!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...