Overall, is that a fair statement of positions?

Not for me, no. But before I start, because the word offender seems to have unfairly implied non-doers to you, I have now substituted the word predator or molester going forward, because it is those who actually perpetrate the physical crime that I am personally concerned with.

In terms of position, to be blunt, it is unfortunate from a research point of view that all the subsets of predatory child molesters are collectively known as pedophiles to the general public, but again, to the victims of such behavior, having to navigate for the rest of their lives all the harm and burden and spiritual and emotional transfers that go with unwanted adult sexuality, that distinction makes no difference.

Instead, one thing always catches my attention, and I've seen it here as well. It is something that all predatory child molesters have in common, and is the shared attribute that I personally believes overrides all of the variations in the research language, especially in regard to perpetrators seeking treatment, which seems to be your area of concern. It is simple human entitlement. To me, this is the distinction in common that overrides all linguistic nuance any researcher could possibly come up with.

Whether predatory child molestation is committed by an incestuous parent, by a batterer whose physical violence then extends to the rape of his wife and children, or by an actual attraction-feeling pedophile, they ALL believe they have a right to the bodies of children.

They ALL see children as objects, to one degree or another, to the extent that many of them have gone out of their way to develop a strong personal defense against their own empathy for the fear, confusion, and pain they cause their underage victims, so that the very real distress of their victims never gets through to whatever humanity they have left.

It is entitlement -- literally that set of beliefs and self-reinforcements that say "I have a right to this child's body, and to engage in whatever damaging, illegal or immoral ancillary behaviors toward that child, his parents, the law, or anyone else that give me my rightful repeated access to that child's body to which I am entitled" -- and NOT any other word, or definition, or set of terms that keeps a predatory child molester of any kind, in my opinion, from seeking treatment for his (or her) paraphilia.

Why would they want treatment, much less participate in the very difficult, soul-baring nature of it, when in the profound sickness of their own belief system it is their right to take that child's body and use it as they wish, and those who would stop them are the real bad guys who just don't understand?

We've seen this especially in the revelations of the Epstein class, but it is there across classes, across races, across cultures, across decades of studies: when predatory child molesters take the bodies of children, it is because predators overwhelmingly believe it is their right to take them.

And to be blunt, there has been a great deal of entitlement shown toward predatory child molesters in this thread, to the point of openly writing off the suffering of the underage victims (now saddled with far too adult burdens to ever be children again) as nothing more than cliché, and doing all possible to completely avoid the subject of this predatory behavior's real lifelong harm to children wherever it is mentioned.

Yet, as I said above, the harm to children is ALL I care about: decades after their perpetrator is sated and has moved on, their own suffering does not end. That is what I am faced with daily, and addressing that specific harm is all that motivates me.

Seeing the entitlement among predators online just pisses me off, because part of it is that they literally believe the rest of us are too stupid to recognize them discussing their appetites openly, and for good reason: people don't know it or see it even in front of their faces because people don't want to know it. But for me, that's secondary: as someone else kindly affirmed here in spite of himself, my interest really is just about the kids, and I came about my knowledge of the entire subject in a hard way. I'm not likely to overlook it.

Now to be clear, you personally didn't reduce their suffering to the single word cliché, someone else did that, though I didn't see any concern in their direction in all you wrote. Maybe that was an accidental oversight, and I'm willing to see it that way in terms of your obvious compassion toward people who are actively trying NOT to perpetrate crimes against children.

And to be honest I appreciate that you are trying to tell the truth as you know it: that much is clear to me.

Your strong distinction between thought and crime is also praiseworthy: just because someone thinks these thoughts or has these desires absolutely does not mean they will do it. And indeed, if you can stop a thought you can stop an action: that's part of the solid truth underneath every success story of overcoming any unwanted compulsive behavior.

But from where I sit, that world of distinction between those would-be predators who only think it, and those who actually act on it, especially repeatedly as many predatory child molesters do, it is not nearly as much a matter of having the thought, but of simply NOT having the humility or empathy or conscience to recognize that their own entitlement to the physical bodies of others literally does not exist in children in reality, much less legally or morally.

And having run into this exact arrogance and entitlement in pretty much every perpetrator, and "defender" of perpetrators, and "explainer" of perpetrators I've ever encountered, I freely admit to having ZERO patience left when it comes to coddling the linguistic nuances of sexual offenses against children.

So I will say this: if you or anyone else is genuinely struggling with refraining from committing offenses against children, you have my heart, and I mean that. Those are not just words. If you are literally white-knuckling your way through unwanted desires trying to find a way out of that inner forest without hurting kids, you and your struggle genuinely have my utmost respect and compassion. It is ironic that the very social structures that prevent people from getting sane research and intervention when they actually want it are the ones that predatory child molesters use to prey upon the unsuspecting and then cover their legal tracks. People that genuinely want help deserve so much better than anything we're giving them now.

No, it's the ones who freely give in to their sickness and conscienceless desires because "it's their right," and "it can't possibly be harmful if they love the child," and "they're treating that kid better than someone else will anyway," and "who cares, it's just a kid, lots of fish in that sea" that should be painfully excised from all contact with society. Just so we're clear.

Thank you again for writing your thoughtful post. It gave me a lot to think about.

I am not continuing a discussion with someone who clearly wants to just yell and call me a pedophile. Continue protesting on behalf of others.

If you could point out, for me and others, exactly where in my writing I specifically did this: "yell and call [you] a pedophile."

Very obviously, I didn't. If I had, you wouldn't have had to lie about it, which begs the question of why you are so threatened by what I said about pedophiles and pedophilia that you took it as a personal attack, against you specifically, which you then countered with an obvious, demonstrable lie?

Which brings me back to my original point, that I think you have gone out of your way to prove for the rest of us:

There is NEVER any time in which defending the linguistic pedantry of pedophilic nuance is a valid stance: it is ALWAYS about something else.

If I had "yelled" (lol) or called you a pedophile -- which is not a term I throw around as a pejorative if only because the thought of what they do is vomitous -- if I had literally done this in reality, you would not have had to lie, distort, or employ such over-the-top amounts of hyperbole.

Instead, you've gone out of your way to make my point. Like this:

I might add you words can be taken out of context, if you try hard enough.

It’s no cliché for me. I live with a survivor. When it comes to sexual offenses against children, the kids are the ONLY ones I think about.

Nice try. It's not the first time a pedo defender has tried to tar me with their own brush. You can't even do it in a straightforward way.

But let me clear it up for you: I genuinely believe, from a very viscerally deep place in my soul, there is nothing as inhuman, as indefensible, as revolting, as UNNATURAL, as sickeningly self-indulgent, as the sexual use of children for ANY purpose, understandable or not. And I have a post history that proves it.

Speaking of which, my profile bio hasn't changed in three years. You should check it out.

And thank you again for going out of your way to prove what I have known all along: the overwhelming defense of tiny differences in language used to describe pedos is never innocent, and never just about nuance.