Are you perhaps confusing two words? "Pedophile" doesn't describe an action necessarily. It is an attraction, and the person having it can be completely continent, even virginal. "Rapist" describes an action, a heinous crime.
Well, as I noted, the corollary in this case is less "rapist" and more “non-consensual sexual enthusiast," the latter denoting the attraction more than the action. But I don't have any problem conflating the two, any more than I have a problem calling someone a "racist" due to his beliefs rather than his actions.
I think it's wrong to call a person a racist unless they are actually ACTING in a racist way. If they are not and have not, then how would you know they are racist? Am I a racist because I am a white woman of a certain age and privilege? Wouldn't it be the same as lumping a chaste pedophile in with an active one?
What? Obviously if you know a person holds racist beliefs, you should call that person a racist. You can—and should—also call a pedophile a pedophile even if he hasn't acted on his desires. And yes, all things being equal, a "chaste pedophile" is better than an "active one," but only because he hasn't harmed any children. In both cases, though, you do the same thing: Keep him far away from any and all children, all the time, forever. And you don't, for goodness's sake, sanitize his extremely dangerous illness by calling it "minor attraction."
Are you perhaps confusing two words? "Pedophile" doesn't describe an action necessarily. It is an attraction, and the person having it can be completely continent, even virginal. "Rapist" describes an action, a heinous crime.
Well, as I noted, the corollary in this case is less "rapist" and more “non-consensual sexual enthusiast," the latter denoting the attraction more than the action. But I don't have any problem conflating the two, any more than I have a problem calling someone a "racist" due to his beliefs rather than his actions.
I think it's wrong to call a person a racist unless they are actually ACTING in a racist way. If they are not and have not, then how would you know they are racist? Am I a racist because I am a white woman of a certain age and privilege? Wouldn't it be the same as lumping a chaste pedophile in with an active one?
What? Obviously if you know a person holds racist beliefs, you should call that person a racist. You can—and should—also call a pedophile a pedophile even if he hasn't acted on his desires. And yes, all things being equal, a "chaste pedophile" is better than an "active one," but only because he hasn't harmed any children. In both cases, though, you do the same thing: Keep him far away from any and all children, all the time, forever. And you don't, for goodness's sake, sanitize his extremely dangerous illness by calling it "minor attraction."