Ronalfy.com — The Personal Website of Ronald Huereca

The following is an anonymous guest post (in response to Pedophiles Helping Pedophiles) sent to me via e-mail as a comment. I have edited it for structure and clarity. Please follow the link to the unedited comment if you are interested.

Self-Rationalization as a Defense

I hate pedophiles (fine, child molesters) that use self-rationalization as a defense.

“Yes, but if they agree to it and they are prepubescent, people think that its still wrong cause the child cant make decisions for herself, but thats the thing, if she was told and explained all the details of sex then asked if she wants to do it and says yes there is no harm done to her” by A (Comment 12)

Simple test here: find a prepubescent child and casually explain death.

Explain how when you die, you go to heaven where everyone is happy. Explain how when you die all the pain in life goes away (all the anger mommy has, and when daddy drinks the “bad drink”). Explain how it all “dissipates”.

If you get the child to agree to let you kill it, 2 points! If you don’t, but continually pressure the child saying how fun it would be to die, 5 points! If the child is completely confused and never really says yes or no and you take that as a yes: 100 points!

Pedophiles Love Innocence?

In reference to comments made by Another Pedo.

If you admit that pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children, you have already lost the argument (you’re just self-rationalizing).

You’re labeling pedophiles as people who love innocence, and that as children are only innocent while they’re pure, pedophiles would never hurt them. However, there are innocent people who aren’t children. Are you sexually attracted to them?

True this is cyclical, but the point is you’re stating that pedophiles are people who love Pure Innocent Children. My first point is simply to show that you’re sexually attracted to children as the primary; the notions of “pure” and “innocent” exist only as categories. Thus, pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children. The “purity” or “innocence” of the child may affect the level of sexual attraction, but the attraction is to children nonetheless.

This being said, sexual attraction is not the same as love. While this may pose a hard concept to grasp, simply because you have sexual feelings towards someone does not mean you’ll put your life out to help that person (again, self rationalization). Given this, while Pedophiles may wish to never hurt a child, what a pedophile constitutes as “hurting” variates based on that person’s morals and integrity.

What is innocence? What is purity? What constitutes the loss of either? You seem to draw the line at “molestation”, but what about non-sexual touching? Will repeatedly touching a child, rubbing, and holding cause a loss in purity? In innocence? Truthfully, yes.

A child can recognize “special” attention, and while said attention might not be sexual, it is disruptive towards the normal actions of the child. In truth, it can also be confusing or terrifying. Children have been known to scream or cry on Santa’s lap, the most caring man in the world. How do you think a child would feel having a stranger taking interest in it?

So I ask what separates pedophiles from child molesters? You seem to categorize them in separate groups, but in actuality there can be child molesters who are pedophiles. As we have established, pedophiles are those who are sexually attracted to a child, but would never hurt a child. However, as proven by the former paragraphs, hurt is a subjective word. And even Pedophiles, in all their caring, may not realize if they are indeed hurting a child.

Child Molesters as Rapists

In continuance to comments made by Another Pedo.

To detract for a moment here, you labeled child molesters as rapists. Although this terminology may be incorrect, lets talk about the psychological profile of a rapist for a moment here.

Many times rape is about control and power; it’s exerting dominance over another. But in many other cases, rape is about sexual immaturity. These are people who act on their sex drive, but for one reason or another don’t take “normal” methods of asking permission.

These same people, these rapists, actually have a small amount of empathy for their victims. They don’t actually want them to get hurt, nor do they view their act of rape as rape, but as consensual sex. Are they right? Is gaining consent via any means possible actually the only borderline between rape and sex?

Which is how it ties in with child molesters. If a child molester is a pedophile, believes that they are not hurting or spoiling the innocence of the child, and even goes so far as to obtain a form of consent, are they still a pedophile?

Truthfully, your definition does not prohibit having sex with minors as much as it advises against it. You wish to believe that a pedophile will never hurt a child, but if that pedophile does not realize what they are doing is hurting the child, how can they be labeled as a simple child molester?

Pedophilia and Consequences

In continuance to comments made by Another Pedo.

Furthermore, I ask if you can restrict sexual contact from pedophilia! You masquerade behind “Purity” and “Innocence” but never cover the looming notion of “sexual arousal”. While some pedophiles may spend their entire lifetime never acting on their impulses, is it safe to deny that such impulses exist? “Purity” and “Innocence” are ideals, but sexual arousal is the truth.

If pedophiles are those who are sexually attracted to children, then they, undeniably, have sexual thoughts about them. What gives? Well, nothing if you don’t act on them. But I ask why not? Do you not wish to caress the warm tender skin of your beloved? To tenderly hold, touch, feel… if she’s willing… if purity would not be forsaken… would you not wish it?

You hide behind the desire not to hurt the child, but why do you believe that doing so will hurt? If pedophilia is normal, shouldn’t sexual relations with a child be normal? Absolutely not. You use a system of smoke and mirrors to ignore the consequences of your desires. You know that acting upon your sexual impulses is wrong, but you have been unable to cleanse yourself of them, thus you have come to accept them, to believe them normal, but not to act upon them. Yet.

I urge you to introspect and answer this question: If you have accepted that sexual desires for children is normal, is it not but a stones throw away to believing that sexual relations is also normal?

Initially you rejected the idea of being a pedophile; you despised it. But now you’re in submission. You realize that you are one and are no longer seeking to change it. What is stopping you from submitting a few morals? From believing a few false truths? What happens when you rationalize away any remaining borders?

There are consequences to our desires. What we wish for, we almost always strive to obtain. We cheat, we steal, we backstab, and we lie to ourselves saying we’re doing it for a better cause.

When we have obtained what we wanted, we have become the very thing that we swore we would never become. Because of your desires, you have accepted being a pedophile. How far you will go is undeterminable, but it is shown that your submission is a direct result of your desires.

This, I ask you: Before anyone can accept pedophilia as normal, we must first realize that there are consequences to our desires. Until you can prove that such consequences do not exist, you can never advocate for the normalcy of pedophilia.

Pedophilia Viewed From Outsiders

In reference to my post on Pedophiles.

@Ronald:

Your views are those of the general populous. Prejudice, biased, and unsavory. It’s hard to debate the point but “Only a black man can call another black man a nigger.”

You’re not a pedophile, so you don’t know what they go through. It’s easy to find out, but most people just want to shoot them. Never once did you ask, “Surely these people must know what they are doing is wrong?” Instead, you deliberated their shoddy arguments of self-rationalization.

Understand this: if a pedophile ever argues if what he is doing is right he actually, and truthfully, regrets (or used to regret) doing it.

The problem is, society offers him no help in his plight. Mention you’re a pedophile to a psychologist and she has the legal right to inform the police.

Society would rather throw you in prison than to try and help. Furthermore, because of the Amber Alert, the only people who will associate with you are criminals and pedophiles.

What I’m trying to explain here is these “how to stalk children” sites are all pedophiles have.

If these groups of pedophiles are saying how great it is to be a pedophile, other pedophiles will stop trying to reject who they are and submit to their desires. This is not a good thing.

Until mature members of society start building places where pedophiles can seek help, they will end up seeking it from groups who have malevolent intents.

I ask this, where are the Pedophiles Anonymous? Where can pedophiles seek help? Who can they talk to? The current answer: only themselves.

Related posts:

1. 500 Words – Pedophiles Helping Other Pedophiles
2. Planned Parenthood and Pregnancies
3. Lives And Reputations Are Fragile
4. I Tried to Abort You. Now I want Compensation.
5. The Bible Says it’s Wrong