[user104658]

Originally Posted by Josy

The focus on his crime took place in the discussion so much because there was posts in here claiming this guy wasn't a paedophile.

I couldn't care any less how much anyone tries to dress it up or make excuses about it, ANY ADULT that is attracted to a 12 year old CHILD is a paedophile in my eyes regardless of how much anyone tries to deny it and I'm just glad that the law see's it that way too.

It doesn't. "paedophile" is not a legal term. "convicted paedophile" is a media buzz term. There is no such thing. There are convicted child molesters, people convicted of making or storing indecent images of children, there are convicted rapists, convicted statutory rapists, a myriad of other convicted perverts, but "convicted paedophile" simply isn't a thing because it is meaningless: paedophilia is not and cannot be a crime until the urges are acted upon, at which point the perpetrator becomes a child rapist or child molester (or child pornographer).

It is a psychological term. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to pre pubescent children. Someone who is attracted to teens after the onset of puberty, but not before, may be messed up, morally abhorrent, a scumbag, a predator, a danger to society, any of these things... But they are not a paedophile. It's not a debate, it's a fact, whether you want it to be or not :/.

Please don't think that this is in any way a defence of this man, or any other person convicted of a sexual offense, or of actual paedophiles... I'm not defending or making excuses for anyone. It just annoys me (as someone with a degree in psychology) when people get these things completely wrong.

Calling non-paedophiles paedophiles is stupid, and damaging, when actual paedophiles exist. The best way to keep society safe from anyone with any mental disorder is to understand it ACCURATELY and take appropriate measures. Muddying the waters with blanket terms might make people feel better in their rants and rages but it doesn't help anyone else. At all.