Semantics: seeing I to I, or not?

June 4th, 2008 by Reidy

Many people have differing opinions and regurgitated definitions of what certain words mean. I respect personal opinions whether I agree with them or not, but I make a *”so-so”/”really?”* looking face when somebody digs up a dictionary or DSM definition of word.

Specifically, I am talking about the words pedophile, boylover, and child molester.

New perceptions on the words will begin with “some say…”

“What does the word pedophile mean?” is a commonly implied question in NUMEROUS debates. Some say it means child-lover (translation, as direct as possible). This is a resurrected definition AS IF this definition should break through the heaps of semantical deposits and twisted views. Why should that take precedence over every other ‘meaning’? BUT, that is strictly the word translation. What does it mean in today’s society? Some will say it means child-lover; keeping its original translation. Some will say it means child molester. Some put “pedophile” and “heterosexual” on the same playing field, as equal value, in the category of sexuality and actually prefer the term “pedosexual.” A heterosexual is as likely to rape a woman as a pedophile is to rape a child (yes, they can both hold real relationships too). Pedophilia or pedosexuality is just another seuxality. Some will plagiarize out of the DSM that it is a paraphilia – a mental illness of being sexually attracted to children (another loooooose term), and some start and stop only with the ‘sexual attraction to children’ part. Some will give critical accounts of what they think it means on a grand scale (generalizing) of society. And yet some will say it means “boylover”- which amounts to nothing…

“What does the word “Boylover” mean?” is a common implicit and explicit question in countless discussions. Some will say that the term “Boylover” is a sugar-coated term for pedophile (it was created by pedophiles and ephebophiles (should I even mention the distinct attractions in a writing about blurry lines!?!?) to shed the baggage that comes with the term “pedophile”). Some will say “Boylover”= child molester. In plain English, this would simply be a compound word, “boy” and “lover”, meaning, somebody who loves boys (LOVE: oh yes, we never have differing opinions on what love is. We unanimously believe it means the same thing [Roll Eyes] ). Whatever your interpretation of love is is going to differ with others, and when you meld that into the term “boylover”, your personal opinion is going to hit and miss with others’ opinions, creating a totally custom meaning. In other words, “boylover” means boy-lover; amounting to nothing, again…

Child molester:
This should be pretty straight forward… SHOULD BE. BUT, many people here believe that a child molester is a model of a make of humans. A subcategory of a subcategory. A Pinto, but not a Ford. This is definitely a possibility, but child molesters are not strictly pedophiles. There are many people who sexually and mentally hurt people under the age of consent who are not even attracted to them. (There are plenty who do the same to those of “consenting age” who are and are not attracted to their “victims” (dammit, another word!)). In many cases it can be a power-hungry drunken rage or something similar. Maybe a boy’s dad had 10 too many to drink one night after his boss gave him a double shift and a demotion- he needed control over something, someone, displacement. Hypothetical, but you see the point. Some say a child molester is somebody who rapes children just as a rapist is somebody who rapes people (of consenting age). Some say that child molester is a pedophile who acts on his/her urges, regardless of the nature of the acts. Even the term “molester” implies age!

As I stated earlier, even the word “child” and NUMEROUS other words (rape, molest, love, sexuality, victim, etc.) are tossed around in oblivion to how it should be interpreted. But how should we extract meanings when they are built on each other?

One usage is grammatical, one is emotional, one is literal, one is critical, one is wrong, all might be wrong; are any “right”?

*Now, being that I did not define words I was referring to in order to define other words (i.e. “…but child molesters are not strictly pedophiles.”), I do not know if you will be able to map out what I’m saying with definitions and opinions deeply branded, AND/OR with all the many-times-over exemplified options.

10 Responses to “Semantics: seeing I to I, or not?”

  1. PiedPiper Says:

    One question I ask myself am I a Paedophile?????????


    The DSM version: I believe the DSM version is a
    whole bunch of Horseshit there is some time of time limit were people feel intense sexual urges well how about most of my life the DSM I feel is entirely wrong but hey I am a paedophile or am I?

    True Paedophile (scientific): Your Main attraction
    is to Pre prepubescent children, my Age of interested is between 10-16 maybe older maybe younger but the fact is I don’t full into this category.

    True Paedophile (social): Your Main attraction is anyone under the age of consent , well this one is just stupid even with the UK and US the definition changes and this applies to anyone who likes anything a bit younger this is the one mainly used today in my country by the way I’m a proud Paedophile in this one.

    Convict: Some believe that you only become a Paedophile once you’ve been convicted of a crime or have done a crime which no one has found out about some visionaries believe in this one and I believe a lot of people with paedophilic thoughts will justify it in this way also I wouldn’t be surprised a lot of antis are like this and by the way I’m not like this because of the simple reason I am typing these words.

    Monster: Well this one appears always when a group has been stereotyped and given folk Devil status this is someone who is superhuman has special abilities that can control and manipulate everyone with just a flick of HIS finger while also being pathetic and sub-human or in my terms a Demon Turd I’m definitely not a monster.

    Greek: Paedophile which basically means child love it doesn’t mean sex but more of a platonic love parents should be paedophiles or anyone else hehhhh………. that is why some call themselves Pedosexuals which is cool and I like the idea and a lot of out paedophiles would consider themselves pedosexuals and not paedophiles but then ask the question do you love children so even if you call yourself a pedosexual your still a paedophile by changing words you still have the stigma attached no win unless you don’t care for children in a loving non-sexual way that is.

    I could go on and on about definitions or opinions there are probably hundreds of them but I’ll just get wrist cramp……….


    I’m a Paedophile and proud of it!!!!!!!
    Why say or write that the fact is the words used Paedophile, Boylover and Child Molester are on the magical plane of stereotypical majority we can butter up the words as much as you like and feel good about yourself but others will think differently so why would I say I’m a Paedophile well answer these questions:

    Do you have to hide your thoughts and feelings?

    Do you feel isolated because of these thoughts?

    Do you feel that your treated unfairly or as a monster?

    I could make a word up like Hebe-Paedophile but the fact is if your feeling persecuted and abused by the system then the words means fuck all you could scream all day what a word means but people will still consider that your a Paedophile or child molester so…………

    I’m a Paedophile and proud not so much because the definition or opinion is right or wrong simply it’s a political statement a one finger salute to this culture where I’m based.

    So Semantics means fuck all and have thought about this for some time.

  2. Daniel Lièvre Says:

    Hi, and welcome to the blog, Reid – I hope that you will be seen elsewhere on this site as well. I’m an etymologist myself, but I agree that there exists such a great deal of slack in common language. As you probably know, there have been countless posts that relate to how this play has been manipulated for certain ends.

  3. Steve Diamond Says:

    I find myself giving definitions to terms like these, more for the purpose of setting standards and guidelines…limits of sorts, so as not to force people to set and wonder, “what does Steve mean by his choice in ‘these’ words”…

    In short, it is setting the groundwork on which a discussion can be built and ideas can be accurately exchanged.

    Of course, I know there are several different (some vastly different) definitions of terms that we may be prone towards using.

    I guess I would have to say that I lean more towards the philosophy that, just as the plain vanillas adopted the word “queer” almost as a sort of slogan, I think there is merit in laying claim to words like “pedophile” and making them our own.

    In spite of whatever baggage it may carry, the simple fact is…we have to confront not the word “pedophile” but the process which has hobbled this word with baggage…and yes, we also have to confront the baggage itself.

    I often have to shake my head in dismay, whenever someone suggests distancing ourselves from the word “pedophile”. You simply are not going to get anywhere, by running away from an idea…and that is all that such a tactic amounts to.

    People are still going to attach the word “pedophile” to you, and all the stigma that comes with it…They already are saying “boylover” and “girl-lover” means “pedophile”…Irregardless of the truth or falseness of the claim, we still end up being painted the same colors by the same brush.

    Redeeming “pedophile” is worthwhile, in my opinion…Even if we can not fully do such, “pedophile” is a battlefield we must fight on…because that is what is used to define “us”…and we must never allow them to define us…especially in such disgusting ways.

  4. Lady Natalia Says:

    So if “pedosexuality” is a real sexual orientation, will the “pedosexual” in a consensual relationship lose interest in the boy/girl when he/she becomes older?

  5. Daniel Lievre Says:

    If an “exclusive” pedosexual, and counting erotic attraction as the only form of interest, then yes – much like the gradual loss of interest in most long-lasting marriages, but somewhat faster.

  6. Steve Diamond Says:

    A pedosexual is sexually oriented towards pedos (that’s “children”). The sexual attraction is very much true, in that it is sincerely happening for the individual; often instead of any parallel attraction to adults…sometimes in addition, but these attractions are on the very same level of biological nature, emotion and psychology. They have the same primal (animal) origins.

    Of course, pedosexuality is a real and legitimate sexual orientation. To claim otherwise, betrays the very definition of “sexual orientation”. Many people are merely orientated towards children, when it comes to sexuality. These people can rightfully be called pedosexuals.

    As to loss of interest…

    I can speak as an exclusive pedosexual, and I can also tell you some of what I have learned from other pedosexuals who have had a sexually active past with children.

    I have been told, very matter of factly, that many, many years ago one of my better online friends had such a relationship…and till this day, whenever the two of them are around each other today, there is still a natural attraction of the sexual persuasion.

    Now, it’s too complex for me to really make you understand the full gravity, and what it is like to foster many deep, personal relationships with other “pedosexuals”, behind the scenes. You don’t really know the lifeline it provides or the paramount level of trust it demands, until you’ve experienced it yourself. But it provides a totally different perspective on the topic, when you know by instinct (and you do) that you are talking to the real thing, and you’ve both gotten to know each other on such a level that there are no secrets between you…There are no barriers, no suspisions, no need to lie…You have a lifelong bond.

    There are a few who I have been around for so long, that I trust them implicitly…and he is one of those people. There is no justification and certainly nothing to be gained, by him lying about “this”.

    His orientation is more broad than that of some of us, however…and he might just be into men, as well as boys…and women…

    Maybe it is their history lingering…or, maybe it is not…Maybe it is a natural attraction, all it’s own.

    It is hard to say, but it does deservet noting that some such relationships do continue on into adulthood…sexual or not.

    These relationships face an uphill battle just to survive, much more brutal than most relationships, merely because of cultural hostility. There is a definite and clear effort on the part of some social agendists, to force all such relationships to fail. It is no surprise, given the overwhelming external hostility surrounding these relationships, that they can not exist openly and their long term prognosis is rather grim…when it is hobbled by these extreme handicaps.

    Do these relationships last?…

    …Does any relationship “last”?…and for how long?…

    Pedosexual relationships are not concretely distinguishable from other types of human, sexual relationship. On average, a human being has seven sexual companions over their lifetime…so, even the so called “normal” people are doing a lot of bouncing around…And dividing your sexual life (which typically happens in your earlier years) amongst seven phases is only going to leave a limited window of time for each companion…That does not make any one companion, nor what you shared with them, “lesser” or regrettable…It just means that we all largely have a natural instinct to experience a range of sexual companionship.

    I recall writing about this, and comparing the “seven companion average” of the “normals” with the life of the pedosexual…and how it’s not so different. The “one love for life” is an idealistic illusion, which does not have any sound basis in nature. This is every bit as true for the “normals” as it is for the pedosexuals.

    ..and that is the elephant in the room, which many people don’t like talking about. They preach and glorify the “one love for life” ideology, all the while that divorces and sexual “cheating” is running rampant amongst the “normals”…

    Our “model” of utopian love, is a hypocritical lie…because the “normals” placed on this pedestal can not live up to it themselves.

    So what if an adult and a child do become romantically involved (this can happen non-sexually as well as sexually), and their relationship runs it’s natural course?…

    So what if they do go their separate ways?…

    How does this differ from any other type of relationship?…

    …Why is it supposedly “bad”, when it happens in “this” context…yet it is seen as little more than a hard lesson of life, when the same sort of thing happens in a more typical context?

    …I mean, children being torn away from their school friends and their best friends…this is a typical scenario which plays itself out all the time…Where is the outrage and calls for it to stop, when a young impressionable and fragile child suddenly has all of these intimate and important relationships torn from their life, as a result of their family moving away?

    It is just ludicrous to accept one circumstance as “okay”, while demonizing the other.

    …and there is sexual fooling around amongst childhood friends, you know?…It’s not as though we can not draw parallels between the pedosexual scenario and the best friends scenario.

    Yes, whether by life circumstances or by death…relationships come to an end…That is the way of life. Nobody can escape this…and nobody deserves to be judged negatively by this fact of life.

  7. Steve Diamond Says:

    I should add an addition here, clarifying that the relationship I referenced above has already had whatever legal interference and ramifications that it is going to have, and it is no longer a matter of concern to law enforcement. Legally, it is over, and no further prosecution (persecution) for this mutually consensual relationship can happen.

    The primary partners remain on good terms today…Regrets for the relationship itself, appear to be non-existent.

    …which is one defiant victory for the good guys and the lovers…

  8. Margaret Brown Says:

    To think I was just looking up the word “semantics” and now I’m replying to what I believe the word pedophelia/pheliac means to me.
    I guess it all has to do with the when,where,and how of the situation,for each is different.I myself would “love” to know just what Mr. Diamond’s story is.I will always myself adhere to the truth and the truth is whether consentual or not a child does not have the emotional ability(as well as some adults)to be involved in a relationship of a sexual nature with someone his/her age or with an adult who can manipulate a child and the outcome of the “game”.Depending if said adult goes to jail and does not pass go nor collect $200!
    As for the other child-lovers who abuse or kill their prey who cares what they’re called pedophile certainly is way too nice because the word applies to a type of humanbeing this type I’ve just mentioned is’nt human at all.

  9. Steve Diamond Says:

    “I myself would “love” to know just what Mr. Diamond’s story is.”…

    I’m really not at liberty to talk about it, sorry.

    I am curious, on what grounds you feel that you have any authority, to call your expressed opinion on childhood sexuality, “the” truth, however…

    It is a popular and cliche talking point, without question…which so many people default too…and it saves people from actually having to think, assess deeper and digest alternative viewpoints.

    …but is that a “good” thing?

    It stands in the way of being open minded, and tailoring more appropriate ways to understand and approach these kinds of situations.

    Even if some similar relationships do turn out badly…on what grounds does this validate attacking, demonizing and destroying the lives, of those (child and adult) who find value in these kinds of relationships?

    …Don’t they have a natural, human right to experience this as naturally good?…and good for them, if that is how they factually experienced it, themselves?

    Overly burdensome politics and law are the alien here…not pleasurable, loving intimacy shared between two people, which acts as a building block of bonding and personal development.

    What so many of us here defend, predates the abusive, prohibition law, which exists so that zealots and bigots can titillate their fantasy, of hounding us out of existence.

    But, anyway…

    …I generally like to encourage people to avoid the trap, of believing their own opinion, and popular opinion also, as being “the” truth…

    So, so many times throughout history, this fallacy has fallen flat on it’s own face.

    It is a divisive, tool of social engineering, and it is born out of contempt, towards politically vulnerable groups.

    There are relatively few things, which can honestly be called “the” truth…

    …More accurate to life, would be to say that we all have our own truths, resulting from our own life experiences…

    …and the trick here, is getting human beings to consistently respect and value, the different life truths of others.

  10. Reid Bailey Says:

    The assumption that because adults are capable of manipulating children, therefore they will do so, cannot be made. On that same note, what do you think many parents do to “socialize” their children…? They manipulate them. And you better believe that kids manipulate adults, they are people too. How much power over a minor attracted adult do you think an adult attracted minor has!?.. just like the power of vulnerability to manipulation a beautiful woman might have over a heterosexual man, whether she knows her power or not.

Leave a Reply