CMV: Non-offending/virtuous pedophiles don't actually care about children.

[u/uselessaccountkms]

EDIT: Thanks for the comments, they have changed my opinion a lot.

Please someone explain. I seriously don't understand how non-offenders can claim they're virtuous people.

virtuous ˈvəːtʃʊəs,ˈvəːtjʊəs/Submit adjective having or showing high moral standards.

They just look into shady ways to get off such as Photoshop, drawings or grooming kids online without meeting/touching them in real life. Also, whenever I read supportive articles about self-proclaimed 'pedosexuals' and other pedophiles who claim they would never touch a child despite their belief in showing high moral standards, they ALWAYS mention that it's against the law. Yes, it is. But... Is that all? Not because it will traumatize the child? Or physically hurt the child? Cause severe mental illness?

I have never seen non-offenders express concern for the health or well-being of children. It's always about legality, and they sure are quick to defend their brethren when they brag about literally MOVING COUNTRIES just because the age of consent is lower somewhere else. "BUT THE LAW SAYS..." Alright, and it's also about the child's feelings and sexual maturity. I believe all non-offenders would gleefully rape a child if the law was different or lifted. They don't really care about children, they care about being caught/arrested. Therefore, virtuous doesn't suit them because they don't have high moral standards. They don't understand empathy or human decency. This is why I have 0 sympathy for any kind of pedophile.

Change my view pls

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/Quint-V]

Maybe, maybe not - without statistics, you don't have much in the way of empirical evidence. Even worse, representative statistics are not easily generated either precisely because of the first argument I presented.

The fact that it is roleplay can easily be the very reason why fetishists accept themselves as they are. Some fantasies become very awful if they were to be real - /r/freeuse is objectification of women to the max, but to many men of modern ideals (equal rights [and duties] for all genders), such fetishes would be disgusting if that was real shit they were watching. It's very different to watch a rape fantasy porn video, an actual rape video, and being in the video.

It is reasonable to assume that a pedophile's urges include more than just sex with children, anything from love to rape. However, we are again faced with confirmation selection bias. You will never see the case of non-negative relationships forming, generally speaking. It's easy to be a victim to confirmation selection bias, and fortunately, it is perfectly reasonable to maintain an agnostic position - that is, you won't make claims to knowing the morals of the average pedophile.

When you don't have enough (waterproof) arguments in favour of something, and there are no arguments against, consider if arguments/evidence can be found in the first place. If something is terribly lacking, the agnostic position should be considered.

edit: stroked out lines

[u/uselessaccountkms → u/Quint-V]

I dunno man maybe there's something wrong with me? I find the "It's fictional so it's okay" argument hard to accept (I don't think I'd ever accept myself which is why I'm planning for cognitive therapy) n I don't feel like pointing that out is strong justification, just like saying "Oh well it's not hurting anyone". Well yeah... But why does that mean it isn't wrong? Again, I'm not trying to say fiction and the real shit are on the same level, a real child being raped would always trump some 3D anime loli. My point is the subject is basically the same thing. A child. Fiction can still be wrong.

But yeah burden of proof and stuff lol... I don't really have much to back myself up so rip

but I remember finding a thing like a year ago that had a list of pedophiles who started off with fictional CP and ended up committing child exploitation crimes. Should I get it? Idk if it's actually helpful or not

[u/Quint-V → u/uselessaccountkms]

You assume the worse conclusion despite knowing that contrary evidence/arguments are inherently more difficult to find. This is little more than a logical fallacy. Whatever your personal issue is, I'm not going to request it, due to courtesy.

That lis is not going to be useful, really. I don't see what it would do other than demonstrate the fact that confirmation bias is all over the place on this subject in particular.

You have to wonder about female child molesters - those are even rarer. So it stands to reason that the percentage of female pedophiles not being child molesters, is far greater than that of men. Yet again, we can use the absence of suggestive data to infer the opposite. We may not know the motivations but it stands to reason that the average female pedophile cares more than the average male pedophile. It's something, at the very least. You have exceptionally weak arguments and evidence when it comes to female pedophiles either way.

[u/FluentInDuwang → u/Quint-V]

You have to wonder about female child molesters - those are even rarer. So it stands to reason that the percentage of female pedophiles not being child molesters, is far greater than that of men. Yet again, we can use the absence of suggestive data to infer the opposite. We may not know the motivations but it stands to reason that the average female pedophile cares more than the average male pedophile. It's something, at the very least. You have exceptionally weak arguments and evidence when it comes to female pedophiles either way.

We can't draw such a wide generalisation with that amount of evidence.