How Should We Treat Minor-Attracted People?

[Tom 1]

Normalizing what? How do you make a sexual attraction that affects less than 5% of the male population mainstream? Tom, if terminology is important, than it is important to recognize that abuse and attraction are not the same thing, particularly when two-thirds of abusers do not have an attraction to children. Pedophilia is not abusive. Child sexual abuse is. One is the topic of this thread, the other is not.

Hi, I don't think you are wrong in what you are saying. This is an emotive issue however, and one of the reasons for that is the kind of damage that sexual abuse at an early age can wreak in a person's life. That in itself justifies tight controls on how it is talked about. Words do have power. Before going into farming I worked in social care. In that field there's a heavy emphasis on PC language, and this weakens the perception of things that are wrong and damaging as being as wrong and damaging.
I'm not sure what to think or feel about it really. It must be an absolute nightmare for someone to feel they are attracted to children in that way. Given, for example, the history of the medicalisation of mental health issues - without getting into that whole debate - I do have what I think is some justified skepticism about any definite conclusions coming out of research in this area. That said, I had quite a few gay colleagues in the UK and I don't doubt that they felt that way from a young age, I mean I can't convince myself that it was a conscious choice for them to feel that attraction, so I understand that it is deep rooted, as many issues are.
All I can say is that if I knew someone personally who was a Christian and struggled with this, but didn't act on it, then I would consider them my brother - and no more of a sinner than me - but I think I'd find it difficult. But initial difficulty in developing a friendship can lead to a deeper friendship in the longer run.

 

[TNF_13]

I'm not sure what to think or feel about it really. It must be an absolute nightmare for someone to feel they are attracted to children in that way.

That depends on how aware the person is of the stigma towards it. If they are very aware, or on social media... some are driven to suicide, without being specifically harassed for it. Some resort to self-harm. Some isolate, some try to get help. It varies widely, but years ago, the only thing you could find on this subject was non-representative recidivism rates and the idea that once someone has an attraction, they are just going to molest child after child until they are put away or put down, without any difference between attraction and behavior. Today, there are actual resources, like Virtuous Pedophiles, and a number of professional organizations, and the first thing someone can find is actual support.

Given, for example, the history of the medicalisation of mental health issues - without getting into that whole debate - I do have what I think is some justified skepticism about any definite conclusions coming out of research in this area.

The research we have is far from complete, and is often done on forensic samples. There are, of course, anonymous surveys and MAPs are becoming more and more comfortable with talking to professionals, at least for research purposes. As far as I know, the one-third statistic is about as accurate as we can be, and trying to figure out the proportion of MAPs that do/do not offend is a big guessing game, which we can educate as much as we can based on statistics, but is still not terribly complete information. It is safe to say that most MAPs do not offend. The big conclusions I feel safe drawing with my familiarity with research that is available:

MAPs are not typically at-risk for harming children directly or indirectly unless they are isolated and have no support.
It is more common for MAPs to offend with abuse images than with a contact offense.
It is more common for abusers of children to not have an attraction to children, than to have that attraction.
Much more research is needed on non-offending MAPS and the origin of minor attraction.

But there is still a very big challenge in bridging the gap between MAPs and professionals. Mandatory reporting laws, which require therapists who think a client has harmed or is at risk to harm someone is required to report it to the police, and of course, these laws vary by location and can be interpreted widely by the therapist themselves. If they risk being held accountable for not reporting, they will err on the side of telling the police. So even if someone has done nothing, they have reason to fear therapists.

That said, I had quite a few gay colleagues in the UK and I don't doubt that they felt that way from a young age, I mean I can't convince myself that it was a conscious choice for them to feel that attraction, so I understand that it is deep rooted, as many issues are.

I do not believe any sexual attraction is a choice. What one does with that is far more subject to discussions of morality, which of course is both a violation of the rules here, and off-topic. But differentiating between the two is a big first step for many people.

All I can say is that if I knew someone personally who was a Christian and struggled with this, but didn't act on it, then I would consider them my brother - and no more of a sinner than me - but I think I'd find it difficult. But initial difficulty in developing a friendship can lead to a deeper friendship in the longer run.

You have already met one such person.

 

[Tom 1]

That depends on how aware the person is of the stigma towards it. If they are very aware, or on social media... some are driven to suicide, without being specifically harassed for it. Some resort to self-harm. Some isolate, some try to get help. It varies widely, but years ago, the only thing you could find on this subject was non-representative recidivism rates and the idea that once someone has an attraction, they are just going to molest child after child until they are put away or put down, without any difference between attraction and behavior. Today, there are actual resources, like Virtuous Pedophiles, and a number of professional organizations, and the first thing someone can find is actual support.


The research we have is far from complete, and is often done on forensic samples. There are, of course, anonymous surveys and MAPs are becoming more and more comfortable with talking to professionals, at least for research purposes. As far as I know, the one-third statistic is about as accurate as we can be, and trying to figure out the proportion of MAPs that do/do not offend is a big guessing game, which we can educate as much as we can based on statistics, but is still not terribly complete information. It is safe to say that most MAPs do not offend. The big conclusions I feel safe drawing with my familiarity with research that is available:

MAPs are not typically at-risk for harming children directly or indirectly unless they are isolated and have no support.
It is more common for MAPs to offend with abuse images than with a contact offense.
It is more common for abusers of children to not have an attraction to children, than to have that attraction.
Much more research is needed on non-offending MAPS and the origin of minor attraction.

But there is still a very big challenge in bridging the gap between MAPs and professionals. Mandatory reporting laws, which require therapists who think a client has harmed or is at risk to harm someone is required to report it to the police, and of course, these laws vary by location and can be interpreted widely by the therapist themselves. If they risk being held accountable for not reporting, they will err on the side of telling the police. So even if someone has done nothing, they have reason to fear therapists.


I do not believe any sexual attraction is a choice. What one does with that is far more subject to discussions of morality, which of course is both a violation of the rules here, and off-topic. But differentiating between the two is a big first step for many people.


You have already met one such person.

Ok brother, well thanks for the info. I think you’re right to be open with it, isolation isn’t good for anyone.

 

[Tom 1]

I do not find anywhere in the Bible that masturbation, sexual fantasy,

It’s clear to me that the ‘not even a hint’ of Ephesians 5:3 covers those issues, as do Jesus’ words on ‘adultery in the heart’ and lust, as quoted above. This is true for anyone, regardless of the object of lust. All non-hetero sexual behaviours outside of the marriage bed are damaging to the soul and offensive to God. Doesn’t mean people don’t have struggles with those things, but it needs to be understood that they are sinful.

 

[TNF_13]

Then we can agree to disagree, Tom. The Bible was formed on principles, one of which being not to add to a list of sins based on nothing more than weighing people down. If it is not directly referenced in the Bible, or covered as a principle, I fail to see why we should consider something a sin. Frankly, the sex drive does not wait until marriage to kick in, so trying to suppress all sexual thought until that point is both ridiculous and likely not what God intended when He gave us a sex drive.

 

[Episaw]

This thread may be triggering.
Please monitor your feelings and walk away as you need to. ​

NOTE: I mean people who are minor-attracted, or in other words, have a sexual attraction to children (pedophilia).

I do not mean someone who has sexually abused a child.

This thread is not meant to discuss the ethics of child sexual abuse: It is wrong, period, and if you do not take that position, your post will be considered off-topic. Please respond accordingly, and as you discuss this topic, please be extra sure to set your emotions aside, and as the statement of purpose states, respond to the argument, not the person, and treat people with respect.

If you feel you can respect that, please feel free to continue reading and consider discussing.

I have been on Twitter for some time now, and recently, I got into conversations with three separate people. One of them was convinced that pedophilia arises from demonic possession. One of them stated that pedophilia is a sin. One of them said that pedophiles need to be put down in the name of God (true story). All of them claimed the name of Christ.

Because of the no profanity/vulgarity rule, I cannot post/link any examples. I will leave that to your imagination.

This begs the question: What is pedophilia? Is it a sexual attraction? Is it a behavior? What is a pedophile, or a minor-attracted person? What does the presence of minor-attracted people mean for the prevention of sexual violence, and is sexual violence perpetrated by people with minor attraction?

I hold the position, based on my familiarity with the research and the experts, that pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, and that those with this attraction should be called pedophiles or minor-attracted people.


Regardless of the terms used, I believe that a sexual attraction and sexual harm are two different things, and having one does not preclude the other when two-thirds of sexual abusers do not have pedophilia at all. I think it is very obvious and it should not need to be said that for a pedophile (someone with pedophilia, or minor attraction) to act on their attraction is wrong legally and morally, and that is not open to debate for me. However, I realize that the perception of pedophilia and pedophiles is not in line with the reality that both terms do not automatically mean harm to a child.

So, with that said, I would like to know what you think the Christian response to people who have a sexual attraction to children should be.

What would Jesus do about people with a sexual attraction to children? What does the Bible say about treating others? Is killing people who have harmed no one justified by biblical principles? Is harassing them and assuming the worst? How should Christians interact with people who have this attraction? Should we love them like we should any other person? Should we shun them, and hope that they work out their attractions on their own?

It involves two things. One, what is good for the person and what is good for the children.

We must avoid deciding on sin according to some form of hierarchy. All sin is sin and must be dealt with accordingly.

First, if the person concerned is a celibate child attracted person for want of a better term, it is in his own interest that he does not work with children. It is no use putting temptation in his way.

If the person has had a conviction regarding this, then he must not under any circumstances be allowed to work with children.

In regards the children involved, we are to protect them as much as we can and I cannot see the problem if they are in the care of normal people in the church bearing in mind there may be a child attracted adult in the congregation.

It is no different to a celibate homosexual not working with teenagers as most people attracted into the homosexual way of life were seduced in as teenagers.

I was part of a church that seemed to have got it right as there were several members of the congregation that were ex-something but no one knew who they were except the leadership. Whilst there I had the occasion to report a house church leader who was bashing his wife. The leadership immediately removed him from the position of leadership and put him into counseling.

It has been said that the church is a hospital, not a holiday resort so we have to accept that God is going to send us all sorts of broken people who need to experience care and attention to made whole again.

 

[TNF_13]

It involves two things. One, what is good for the person and what is good for the children.

What is good for the person is typically what is best for children.

We must avoid deciding on sin according to some form of hierarchy. All sin is sin and must be dealt with accordingly.

First, if the person concerned is a celibate child attracted person for want of a better term, it is in his own interest that he does not work with children. It is no use putting temptation in his way.

I disagree. Are you heterosexual, I would presume? Is every woman you come across a temptation for you? Are you automatically a risk for raping every woman you see? Does seeing women automatically lead to a fantasy about that woman? If the answer to those questions is no, then you understand why I disagree with you.

If the person has had a conviction regarding this, then he must not under any circumstances be allowed to work with children.

Since this thread is discussing people who have never harmed a child, you might wish to head to my thread about protecting children.

In regards the children involved, we are to protect them as much as we can and I cannot see the problem if they are in the care of normal people in the church bearing in mind there may be a child attracted adult in the congregation.

I think you care more about kids than you do how to treat MAPs. Do you think the level of fear and suspicion you are recommending would be helpful? Do you know enough facts about how sex abuse happens to know that your suspicion would actually protect children?

Also, there are homosexuals who read these forums. Please leave the sort of rhetoric you expressed at the door. Child sexual abuse does not make people homosexual or pedophilic, and implying that is not only inaccurate, it is extremely insulting. It would not surprise me at all if it were already against the rules here.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Are you heterosexual, I would presume? Is every woman you come across a temptation for you? Are you automatically a risk for raping every woman you see? Does seeing women automatically lead to a fantasy about that woman? If the answer to those questions is no, then you understand why I disagree with you.

Seems it would depend on correct proper true sex of God, that those of such an orientation, that how they think is just like how those having perversion attraction think. I don't think that can truly be considered to be the case.
If one is already a rebel and a renegade, practicing pseudo sex and anti-sex, the denial of true sex, practicing or, if not, at least thinking it might be good to do so, then already THE IDEA THERE ARE BOUNDARIES might be less adhered to, when there is less inclination to accept the usual boundaries of society and the interrelationship of individuals.

 

[TNF_13]

Do you care to answer my questions, Douglas?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Do you care to answer my questions, Douglas?

Looks like you have one question, and my answer is, might do so - IF I CAN. Depends on what they are.

 

[TNF_13]

Looks like you have one question, and my answer is, might do so - IF I CAN. Depends on what they are.

You quoted them earlier. Do you not care to answer them?

Are you heterosexual, I would presume? Is every woman you come across a temptation for you? Are you automatically a risk for raping every woman you see? Does seeing women automatically lead to a fantasy about that woman?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You quoted them earlier. Do you not care to answer them?

I pointed to why your answer does not apply.

That is, there is no proper parallel between the heterosexual case and the ones where perversion is desired and/or practiced. What you can say about the one case does not automatically similarly apply to the other. Your reason for your disagreement, in other words, does not stand.

 

[TNF_13]

I pointed to why your answer does not apply.

That is, there is no proper parallel between the heterosexual case and the ones where perversion is desired and/or practiced. What you can say about the one case does not automatically similarly apply to the other. Your reason for your disagreement, in other words, does not stand.

Do you know what special pleading is?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Do you know what special pleading is?

Do you know what a weak analogy is?

 

[TNF_13]

Do you know what a weak analogy is?

I am quite familiar with it. So tell me something, then: Who do you think knows more about how pedophilia operates? Someone who has it, or someone who calls it a perversion?

Why Pedophilia And Pedophiles Are Not A Risk To Children

You and others seem to have this idea that because a sexual attraction is different from yours, it therefore operates differently from yours. Well, newsflash: That is just confirmation bias. If we are to have a rational discussion about this, then you cannot just throw my words out whenever it is convenient to your viewpoint. That is the very essence of special pleading.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Who do you think knows more about how pedophilia operates? Someone who has it, or someone who calls it a perversion?

Thought the question was, WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?
(Not how it operates.)

Not here saying it is irrelevant to consider how it operates - however, it may be SOME OBSERVERS are more objective than others - and over and above that, the observing of oneself has often been characterized as subjective, a subjective activity.

Since the OP is put forward by someone "mixed," (not to mention mixed up), someone mixed in the sense of admitting to be mostly "same-sex" attracted, AND ALSO desirous of the very young, there are therefore two defective elements to consider.

It is claimed these defects are never practiced, however, there seems to be a serious lack of awareness that being in what some might call "circumstances of temptation" is, (imho), bound to reinforce the FALSE attractedness, the DISORIENTATIONS, whether of one kind or the other or both.

That is, for such a person, it is NOT MERELY SOME NEUTRAL THING to be in the company of the very young, or the same sex.
So must not be treated as such, should never be shrugged off as though such contact did not matter and was not relevant.

 

[TNF_13]

Thought the question was, WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?
(Not how it operates.)

Not here saying it is irrelevant to consider how it operates - however, it may be SOME OBSERVERS are more objective than others - and over and above that, the observing of oneself has often been characterized as subjective, a subjective activity.

I think you have made it quite clear what you think we should do. Because...

Since the OP is put forward by someone "mixed," (not to mention mixed up), someone mixed in the sense of admitting to be mostly "same-sex" attracted, AND ALSO desirous of the very young, there are therefore two defective elements to consider.

...you just called us defective. So, thank you for that. A cheery Merry Christmas to you too... Very glad you think I am mixed up and defective. Very glad I am quite secure in my faith and knowing who I am and who I am not, and that those kinds of comments really do not bother me, or your words might have been quite painful indeed.

Personally, I do not believe God makes defective people. I think He loves everyone, me included. And subjectively speaking and having seen the research, researchers, and objective evidence, I know I am not a risk to children, which brings me to your next point...

It is claimed these defects are never practiced, however, there seems to be a serious lack of awareness that being in what some might call "circumstances of temptation" is, (imho), bound to reinforce the FALSE attractedness, the DISORIENTATIONS, whether of one kind or the other or both.

...which you can discuss in this thread:

How Can We Ethically Prevent Child Sexual Abuse?

I can give you all the information you want. As you said, the purpose of this thread is to discuss how we treat non-offending pedophiles. And...

That is, for such a person, it is NOT MERELY SOME NEUTRAL THING to be in the company of the very young, or the same sex.
So must not be treated as such, should never be shrugged off as though such contact did not matter and was not relevant.

...you make it very clear here that you think having an attraction is an automatic risk to children. You might as well suggest that shady-looking middle-aged men in trench coats are the main perpetrators of child sexual abuse, but again, that would be a discussion for my other thread that I just linked.

Like you, I prefer objective evidence... not subjective opinions that are not grounded in experience, reality, research, and fact.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

"you make it very clear here that you think having an attraction is an automatic risk to children" (Sorry, I did not get the quote in the right place."

I never said that. Guess we are into guesses here, making accusations based on nothing.

The risk I was noticing was to you.
One will, imho, become even more "sexually" disoriented if one MAKES CHOICES to be where one's very questionable "viewpoint" is reinforced, is very much in play, and therefore reinforced.

Yes it is uncommon or never occurs that someone at some one time chooses to become disoriented in the sphere of sexuality, makes one such big choice.

It becomes full blown perversion if over many occasions one chooses to look upon the same sex (and interact with it) in a "sexual fashion." And certainly every time remaining the presence of the very young when basically, deep down (according to the "it is no choice I am born that way"), one wants to have "sex" with them, will be a choice in the direction of pedophelia.

 

[TNF_13]

Well, when you have objective evidence and are willing to discuss protecting children in that other thread - without accusing people of being defective perverts - let me know. Until then, you have a good Christmas, and look up 1 John 2.1-14. That might give you a few clues about how we are to treat minor-attracted people.

 

[teresa]

I'm a retired pastor. My most heart-wrenching experience was the discovery that a cherished member of my church had been arrested for molesting a young boy. His sentence (14 1/2 years) seemed far too harsh, even though he was a school psychologist. But what made this ordeal so searing for me was the fact that in every other way this man was kind, generous, and devout. He gave sacrificially to those in need and was masterful in comforting grieving hearts. Before his heinous act, he had confided in me that he wanted to grow spiritually and contribute in new ways to our church. He already served well as a church musician and regularly delivered our children's sermons.

What most upset me about this ordeal was the utter lack of love shown him by our parishioners, who just wanted him to suffer as much as possible. Even the idea of sending him a birthday card in prison was anathema. Many were upset that I even regularly visited him in prison. It was as if his eternal destiny should no longer be of concern and that his many positive contributions to our church and community should count for nothing. Well, his enemies will get their wish because he his now dying of dementia in prison.

I am continually haunted by the utter lack of grace and compassion that was shown this apparent sick but tender soul.

OP-I agree in trying to live how Jesus lived and living like the first century Christians did, helping and healing and giving to all who had need-including lepers or the figurative "lepers" of society.

Pastor "deadworm"

I agree with you 100%. Jesus turned the world upside down, by showing that loving our enemies, showing them grace and helping them to reform is the way, the truth and the life we are to live.

The man you speak of is imprisoned, and is being punished, why would any Christian think he doesn't deserve pastoral care, leading to his possible redemption in the eyes of Christ, with his death leading to an eternity with the Lord of life?

I strongly feel that we need to be Jesus hands and feet here on Earth, including visiting prisoners.

Pastor, I know that God blesses your prison ministry.

Was it too late for the thief on the cross?

(Off topic, but I conversed with a prison chaplain who worked with jeff dahmer, and after meeting with this chaplain 3 times and listening to his in depth conversations, for several hours, I do believe the chaplains testimony that jeff really came to faith, repented of his sins in prison, became born again and is in heaven now).