Why call it Paedophillia?

[archeraddict]

Don't really know where to post this but does any one know why we don't call people who are sexually attracted to children 'paedosexual'? I hate the fact that breaking down the word 'paedophile' means 'child lover'. We have 'hetrosexual', 'homosexual' so why not 'paedosexual'.

[Ice.Maiden]

Because"paedosexual'd" be a noun, if used in the same context as others, such as "hetrosexual".
The word you're asking about is an adjective (describing word) - the act of .
Any prefix of "paed.." refers to children, such as paediatrician.

[archeraddict]

I know, that's why it is child(Paed) Love (phile).

I'm not sure I follow your logic though - as niceboy says, it does seem more sarcastic, as abusing a child is hardly an 'act of' love for a child! Sex between consenting adult, whatever their gender, is still 'an act' but their orientation is described as 'sexual'. I think using that root here but make it much clearer.

[brionon]

Because people {Proffessors} will insist on using silly greek and latin words instead of English.

[Ethel]

'Philia' is defined by Chambers as:

an abnormal and usually sexual liking or love of the specified thing

And the Free Dictionary defines it as:

Abnormal attraction to

So by that definition, paedophilia is the proper word.

[sammmo]

why not just call them "kiddiefiddlers"

[archeraddict]

Thanks Ethel. I have not seen these definitions before and feel very confused by them.

I understood 'philia' to be one of the greek words for love which is not sexual - that was eros. It is usually thought to be the love of friendship or of making a decision to show love, independent of emotions, as in 'philanthropy'. Philadeplephia means the 'city of brotherly love' and there are so many other words that we use, which have 'philia' as the root, which are positive words.

I'm afraid I still feel therfore that peadophile is totally the wrong term for these people.

[fredpuli47]

Ethel's dictionaries are right. If you think of words ending in philia e.g necrophilia ,you'll find that they refer to an unnatural interest, not a 'love'. When the words begin with philo or phila they mean 'love' . That's the difference.The classically -educated medical people who named conditions such as necrophilia and paedophilia knew their Ancient Greek constructions.So, presumably,did whoever named Philadelphia. Had they called it Delphiphilia, they'd have given the city a very unfortunate image !

[terambulan]

Name them by what they are, 'child abuser'. Easy to understand by everyone.

[Ethel]

I don't agree, terambulan.

Many child abusers are not driven by sexual urges or sexual fantasies.

They beat children, neglect them, subject them to mental and / or physical cruelty. But those people are not paedophiles.

Going back to the original question. It is recognised that being homosexual, heterosexual or asexual is the very essence of a person, is a normal and natural way to be (although some individuals will argue, for example, that homosexuality is abnormal). Society and the law accepts that is the way people are and is the accepted norm.

To say the same of 'paedosexuals' takes any responsibility from the perpetrator - they will say that it is normal for them, they were born like it, they cannot help it and they have a right to be themselves.

Calling them paedophiles stresses the abnormality of the behaviour and recognises that it is in no way part of a normal, civilised way of life and culture.

[archeraddict]

Thank you, that helps a lot thinking of the difference in meaning between using a word as a prefix or a sufix.

That said, there are words, such as Anglophile or Bibliophile that, whilst suggesting perhaps an exagerated 'love' for a subject, isn't unnatural in the way paedophilia is.

I also agree Ethel that using the term 'paedosexual' would somehow make it a 'natural' state. However, I was thinking that these people claim that they can not help it and so the terminology should be accurate rather than what we believe to be acceptable. I think on balance though that you are right and it would suggest a 'normality'.

Interesting and thanks to all for debating it.

[fairkatrina]

the term 'paedophile' was coined by Richard von Krafft-Ebing, first used as an English word by Havelock Ellis in the late 19th-early 20th century. It meant 'child-loving' because it specifically referred to those who felt sexual love for children, but did not necessarily seek sexual relationships; rather they put the child first and were often happy just spending time with the child.

Krafft-Ebing coined a partner term, 'pseudopaedophilia' to refer to those who sought sex with children; they were not classified as 'paedophiles' (that is, child-lovers) until the American sexologists in the 1950s used the term to mean any occurance of sexually-orientated adult-child relationship.

For all the major sexologists (most notably Krafft-Ebing, Ellis, Moll, Freud) paeodphiles did not pose a sexual threat to children because they would not want to distress them, rather the threat came from those saited with adult partners, the immoral, the sexually violent, and the working class. Make of it what you will...

[Ethel]

There is a danger in classing everyone with a label as the same.

I don't believe for one minute that anybody chooses to be a paedophile - I think it must be a living nightmare for those with those tendencies who don't act them act.

I think the vast majority of paedophiles understand that their inclinations are very wrong and don't give in to their desires. Of course, we never hear about them as they have not committed any offences.

Just as the vast majority of heterosexuals don't carry out violent rapes, and indeed aren't ever tempted to.

And then some paedophiles believe their way of thinking is right and 'persuade' children rather than force them.

And some are extremely violent.

So while all paedophile acts are very bad, not all paedophiles are the same, in my view.