This Article was originally published on Medium by Ikben Anoniem
A response to the article in the New York Times article by Benedict Carey.
In this article, we see three items: apples = people who have sexual acts with children; bananas = people who view CSEM (Child Sexual Exploitation Material); walnuts = pedophiles. We know that the similarity is that we can eat them, but are they the same? No apples and bananas are fruit, while walnuts are not. Apples grow on trees while bananas are from a plant. So, as I said, in this article we see three different subjects. They are all humans, but abusers and viewers do illegal actions. Pedophilia is a legal feeling. Abusers have recidivism risks; viewers are usually one-time offenders.
The use of language and the structure of this article implies the apples, bananas and walnuts are all the same—as if they are interchangeable. The content of the article only makes sense if we see abuse, viewing and the sexual orientation of pedophilia as the same.
Abuse and the recording of that act is terrible, and we should do all to prevent it. Predators are people who do seek and groom children to have sex with them. In many cases, these people are not pedophiles (i.e. attracted to prepubescent children). Vigilantes often “sting” these persons by pretending to be 14- or 15-year-old kids.
Many teleiophiles are also interested in those young teens. So some may be pedophiles, but most offenders are not pedophiles. When we look at viewing CSEM, we find that there are many pedophiles who look these indecent images, but most viewers are not attracted to young children. Most offenders in hands-off offences are, again, 80% teleiophiles. There are many pedophiles who know that acting sexually with children is wrong and would hurt and harm them. Pedophilia = “loving children”, and they therefore do not act out. Also the legal consequences will stop them from acting out. I assure you that no one wants to be imprisoned as a pedophile.
Only looking to pedophiles as a risk for abuse makes us look away from that large number of people who do abuse children. This is not prevention; it is hiding your head in the sand—not wishing to think about it, talk about it or even research it.
A word about the research in this article by the science editor Mr. Benedict Carey: it is as though he wants to write an article about scientific research done by experts in pedophilia... or is it about abuse? Or is it, as the article starts, about viewing CSEM? The use of statements in the article seem to be of value. But I ask the researchers like M. Seto, E. Letourneau, F. Berlin and J. Cantor if they would back up the content of this article. Their statements are used. Those are true. But the way they are placed within the content makes it different.
I, as a pedophile, know nothing about abuse. So this part of the article must be responded by these experts. About pedophilia, I have much knowledge (as an experienced pedophile of 54 years of age who has never hurt a child). I am glad of the research on pedophilia. It is slowly getting around, especially thanks to Drs. James Cantor and Ian McPhail. But if you ask an expert on sexual abuse investigation, they have only researched abusers. As well, the journalist quotes the debunked Butner study. This was politically motivated research to make it seem important to have severe punishments for people who commit sexual offenses. Worldwide recidivism rates of sexual offenders is around 3%. Stating that they are as high as 85% is not accepted anymore. (Please see Dr. Seto’s Twitter comments on this.)
Modern research on abusive viewing is done by the German project Dunkelfeld. Dr. Klaus Beier makes also statements about a different approach and finding different results. Also Dr. Elisabeth Letourneau has made statements on different approaches and different policies. The best expert on the subject Dr. Michael Seto even wrote a book on the subject, with a totally different approach to pedophilia and abuse. In this article, there is only the usage of old data, not the latest developments in the field.
What I, as a pedophile, have been hurt by the most is that the journalist did not ask for a quote from any pedophilia organizations like B4Uact or VirPeds.
All I can say is that this article did not provide any value except to those who stigmatize and who want to create more uproar, more hate, against pedophiles. Maybe this was unintended, but that is the result. Any scientific value of the article will be debunked by the represented scientists.
As we all know, one cannot compare apples and bananas, and one cannot compare those with walnuts. So we cannot talk about pedophilia and then start to speak about abuse/viewing images. Every journalist should know how to make an article that stands up to scrutiny.
I hope Benedict Carey will rewrite his article and make apologies to the many innocent people who have been endangered by the stigmatizing and hate-arousing text. Many of us feel more unsafe—and THAT makes the risk of offending higher. Prevention is not achieved by accusing pedophiles as the only abuser group. We need to speak about who abuses and how. We owe that to the victims, but also to people who keep children safe by their own actions.