Your friend tells you they're a paedophile

[henryp]

Let's pretend you have a friend, and you're a parent. You've known this friend a long time. You trust them, and you believe they are a good person.

One day they confide in you that they are a paedophile. They have sexual urges towards young children. They say they haven't ever acted on them, nor do they intend to, and you believe they are sincere. They just want your understanding and support, and they ask that you keep this confidential.

How do you react? For example:

1) Do you keep it confidential?

a) No, tell as many people as possible
b) No, tell a select few
c) No, tell a select few but ask them to be sympathetic
d) Yes

2) Will you still be their friend?

a) No, cut all contact
b) Yes, but distance yourself
c) Yes

3) If yes to the above, will it change the contact you allow with your children?

a) Yes, cut all contact
b) Yes, only supervised contact
c) No

4) Will you support them?

a) No, don't want to hear anything about it
b) Yes, as long as they keep it vague
c) Yes, let them say whatever they need to

Sexual impulses aren't really under anyone's control.  As a guy, I want to see lots of boobs.  It's annoying.  I don't gain anything from this.  It's just biology.  If I went around telling everyone who's tits I wanted to see, that'd create some problems.  Hey, I'd like to see your wife's tits!  And your daughters!  And maybe your sisters while we're at it!  And tit-seeing is pretty benign.  There's plenty of other stuff men would like to do to women.   Joe, I have this fantasy about ass-raping your wife while you're tied up in the corner!  Joe's probably not going to like that.

The point being, wanting to have sex with kids is a bad break.  I don't think the urge itself iis wrong though.  Moralizing biology is pretty sketchy.  And I think when you tell someone something about themselves they can't control is bad, that's a recipe for disaster.  I think the message should be that the impulses aren't as common as most, but they are natural.  But at the same time, they aren't allowed to act upon them in our country.   

That being said, sharing that information has consequences, as people are protective of their children obviously.  So my problem with a paedophile telling me they're a paedophile (while I have a kid), is that it's a dick move on their part.  They should talk to a therapist about it instead, because they should know how uncomfortable it would make me given that I have a kid.

To answer the question, I think I'd say d, c, b, a (until I no longer have a kid, at which point it would be c) depending on original friendship, of course.  Cutting losses on fringe friend is obviously an option.

[Chad32]

Well it's established that this is my friend. So I should know them enough to know whether or not they're yanking my chain when they said they never touched a child inappropriately. Of course if it was a friend, and I spent a lot of time with them, including with children, I'd probably already have some idea that they liked kids a little too much.

The important thing is the present and future. Which is why I'd maintain contact with them, and make sure they got treatment and whatever else they need. I don't make friends, or throw them away, easily. Now if something comes out that proves s/he did do something wrong, that's for the cops and judicial system to work out.

See there it is you believe them because you trust them and THINK you know them. Are you telling me that my mom didn't know the man she was married to for over 15 years? Didn't see how he treated me exactly like he did my sisters? How being married to him she trusted him with her life, her children's lives, and loved him? How she had known him for over 20 years, slept next to him every night, talked about everything under the sun with him, saw that he was a substitute teacher and how all the kids loved him. How everyone, including my mother, was blindsided, stunned, unable to accept it for truth that this mason/Shriner, volunteer at charities, Christian, wonderful father/teacher/husband, charismatic man had been sexually abusing his oldest daughter for years.

You can think you know your friend all you want but that doesn't mean you do.

You do have a point. I'm not sure how someone can get away with such a thing, right in front of people who see them every day. I guess this would be a hard situation to be in.

[mlmooney89]

I changed my mind. If the pedophile is functional enough to fly under the radar they can control their urges. How is one, supposedly, so compelled to fuck little kids that they could potentially do it in secret, thereby destroying a future person's life forever, and the offender knowing this perfectly well, as well as inviting possible jail time and ostracization from society if they are found out, and still function as a normal person? They can't be.

Did you not read anything I fucking wrote? They CAN be and it happens all the damn time. I literally watched it happen for YEARS.

[mlmooney89]

See there it is you believe them because you trust them and THINK you know them. Are you telling me that my mom didn't know the man she was married to for over 15 years? Didn't see how he treated me exactly like he did my sisters? How being married to him she trusted him with her life, her children's lives, and loved him? How she had known him for over 20 years, slept next to him every night, talked about everything under the sun with him, saw that he was a substitute teacher and how all the kids loved him. How everyone, including my mother, was blindsided, stunned, unable to accept it for truth that this mason/Shriner, volunteer at charities, Christian, wonderful father/teacher/husband, charismatic man had been sexually abusing his oldest daughter for years.

You can think you know your friend all you want but that doesn't mean you do.

You do have a point. I'm not sure how someone can get away with such a thing, right in front of people who see them every day. I guess this would be a hard situation to be in.

It's a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing. The rest of the world sees Dr. Jekyll while his victim sees Mr. Hyde behind closed doors. People can be charming and charismatic one moment, shut the door, and slam someone up against a wall the next.

[Edwardo Piet]

If I truly trusted this person [then] my kids would have nothing to fear from them, nor others supposedly.

Non-sequitur. Doesn't matter how much you trust someone it doesn't indicate that your kids have nothing to fear from them. It's just subjective trust and when in the face of expressed urges that could potentially lead to harmful behavior no amount of subjective trust is worth the risk of you being wrong about the person.

[...]encourage them to admit they have a problem and seek the appropriate help.

If possible and realistically achievable, yes. But I don't think it is.

In principle it's a good idea: if we could just encourage them to admit it and seek help as a society then that would be the morally good thing to do because they'd get treated before we had any evidence of any crimes committed: but in practice I don't think it's a realistic society that we could live in.

[Losty]

You do have a point. I'm not sure how someone can get away with such a thing, right in front of people who see them every day. I guess this would be a hard situation to be in.

It's a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing. The rest of the world sees Dr. Jekyll while his victim sees Mr. Hyde behind closed doors. People can be charming and charismatic one moment, shut the door, and slam someone up against a wall the next.

I still don't understand how this is relevant to the topic at hand. You see a discussion involving something highly upsetting for you and you proceed to throw your emotions at it. It makes it impossible to discuss the issue. We are not talking about child abuse. We aren't talking about a situation in which a child has reported abuse. We aren't suggesting allowing pedophiles to hang out with kids.

We are talking about human beings here. Who happen to be sick. Who haven't done anything wrong.

Being a child molestor doesn't even make someone a pedophile. Raping a kid doesn't even make someone a pedophile. Raping a man doesn't make a male rapist gay. Raping an old lady doesn't make someone whatever the term is for a person who is attracted to old people. Rape is almost never about sexual attraction and gratification. Rape is about power and control. Rapists dont typically pick their victims based on who they think is hottest. They pick their victims based on who they can get away with raping. I have no idea why being a pedophile would make someone any more likely to rape a kid than being a heterosexual would make you likely to rape a man if you couldn't get any to have sex with you. Peoples sexual desires are not the deciding factor in whether or not they're a rapist. If this logic doesn't apply in any other situation why would it apply here? It makes no sense.

[Arkilogue]

It's a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing. The rest of the world sees Dr. Jekyll while his victim sees Mr. Hyde behind closed doors. People can be charming and charismatic one moment, shut the door, and slam someone up against a wall the next.

I still don't understand how this is relevant to the topic at hand. You see a discussion involving something highly upsetting for you and you proceed to throw your emotions at it. It makes it impossible to discuss the issue. We are not talking about child abuse. We aren't talking about a situation in which a child has reported abuse. We aren't suggesting allowing pedophiles to hang out with kids.

We are talking about human beings here. Who happen to be sick. Who haven't done anything wrong.

Being a child molestor doesn't even make someone a pedophile. Raping a kid doesn't even make someone a pedophile. Raping a man doesn't make a male rapist gay. Raping an old lady doesn't make someone whatever the term is for a person who is attracted to old people. Rape is almost never about sexual attraction and gratification. Rape is about power and control. Rapists to typically pick their victims based on who they think is hottest. They pick their victims based on who they can get away with raping. I have no idea why being a pedophile would make someone any more likely to rape a kid than being a heterosexual would make you likely to rape a man if you couldn't get any to have sex with you. Peoples sexual desires are not the deciding factor in whether or not they're a rapist. If this logic doesn't apply in any other situation why would it apply here? It makes no sense.

Because adults inherently have power over children?

[Excited Penguin]

I changed my mind. If the pedophile is functional enough to fly under the radar they can control their urges. How is one, supposedly, so compelled to fuck little kids that they could potentially do it in secret, thereby destroying a future person's life forever, and the offender knowing this perfectly well, as well as inviting possible jail time and ostracization from society if they are found out, and still function as a normal person? They can't be.

Did you not read anything I fucking wrote? They CAN be and it happens all the damn time. I literally watched it happen for YEARS.

Yea, I know. What I meant was they are either insane and actually can't control their own actions or they can control them perfectly well but they are just evil. Either way, no place for sympathy. And it's hard for me to imagine anyone just so compelled to do it that it's none of their faults. This isn't like a tic, a sneeze or some other involuntary reaction. That's ridiculous. These people know perfectly well what they are doing. How is this even a thing, talking about supporting them, seriously?! What are they, fucking mindless animals? No.

So it's ridiculous. You find kids attractive, fine, keep it to yourself and keep it in your fucking pants. Unless you're mentally incapacitated. Then you need to be barred from society until your problem is dealt with profesionally.

[Losty]

I still don't understand how this is relevant to the topic at hand. You see a discussion involving something highly upsetting for you and you proceed to throw your emotions at it. It makes it impossible to discuss the issue. We are not talking about child abuse. We aren't talking about a situation in which a child has reported abuse. We aren't suggesting allowing pedophiles to hang out with kids.

We are talking about human beings here. Who happen to be sick. Who haven't done anything wrong.

Being a child molestor doesn't even make someone a pedophile. Raping a kid doesn't even make someone a pedophile. Raping a man doesn't make a male rapist gay. Raping an old lady doesn't make someone whatever the term is for a person who is attracted to old people. Rape is almost never about sexual attraction and gratification. Rape is about power and control. Rapists to typically pick their victims based on who they think is hottest. They pick their victims based on who they can get away with raping. I have no idea why being a pedophile would make someone any more likely to rape a kid than being a heterosexual would make you likely to rape a man if you couldn't get any to have sex with you. Peoples sexual desires are not the deciding factor in whether or not they're a rapist. If this logic doesn't apply in any other situation why would it apply here? It makes no sense.

Because adults inherently have power over children?

How does this address my post in any way?

[Excited Penguin]

If I truly trusted this person [then] my kids would have nothing to fear from them, nor others supposedly.

Non-sequitur. Doesn't matter how much you trust someone it doesn't indicate that your kids have nothing to fear from them. It's just subjective trust and when in the face of expressed urges that could potentially lead to harmful behavior no amount of subjective trust is worth the risk of you being wrong about the person.

No, Ham, subjective is all anyone has. In any one instance you can't both trust someone and at the same time not trust them. It's one or the other. If your trust fails in face of adversity, that's fine, but it also means you never really trusted that person implicitly to begin with.

If that person then goes ahead and violates my trust, that's another thing altogether.


These are my own values and views. If you don't understand them, ask for clarification, don't debate them like they are purported facts instead, though. No non-sequitur is to be found in my statements, - I made no claims.