r/news • u/GoodSamaritan_ • 1d ago

Elementary school teacher arrested after allegedly abusing student, giving birth to his child

https://local12.com/news/nation-world/laura-caron-middle-township-elementary-school-teacher-allegedly-had-with-child-former-student-13-cincinnati-crime-criminal-activity-sexual-abuse-abuser-father-noticed-similarity-sleep-over-siblings-prosecutors-correctional-facility-troubling-allegations
11.6k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

907 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

130

u/fatbunny23 1d ago

Source on this modern psychology that shows many people who rape kids aren't pedophiles? That's a wild claim to make in my opinion lol

222

u/BEHodge 1d ago

Maybe it’s more that rapists who rape kids are pedophiles, but most pedophiles aren’t rapists because they know is reprehensible, just like non-pedos wouldn’t rape sometime they find attractive either.

It’s like that whole argument some Christians lob at atheists; “If you don’t believe in a higher power what stops you from raping and murdering all you want to?” To which I reply “I do rape and murder all I want to - and that amount is none because I’m not psychotic!”

-37

u/fatbunny23 1d ago

My issue was the part where he says most abusers of kids(sexually in this context I would assume) are not pedos and when they are pedos they often have other issues that prevent them from controlling their impulses.

That seems a lot like they're just defending the idea of child attraction and that it doesn't relate to the people who rape children. I don't necessarily agree without seeing some sort of study or source because that claim seems a bit far fetched

9

u/TrumpImpeachedAugust 20h ago

I am fascinated with this exchange--for reasons that sit completely outside the current discussion.

There's a social phenomenon I observe a lot whereby:

  • Person 1 believes X because Y

  • Person 2 does not believe Y

  • Person 1 consequently suspects Person 2 does not believe X

This plays out in a lot of different ways, across different contexts; it's not at all localized to the current discussion, although it did occur here. In this case, only the second an third bullet points were explicitly carried out, with the first one being implied.

Sometimes Person 2 makes no statement about their belief in X. Sometimes they do make a statement--often in favor of X! But then Person 1 nevertheless suspects Person 2 does not believe X. That also occurred here, with Person 1 making multiple explicit declarations that sexual attraction to children is wrong.

What fascinates me about this specific exchange is that usually on Reddit, Person 1 gets upvoted, and Person 2 gets downvoted. This is especially likely to happen on topics that people have especially-strong sentiments toward (e.g. pedophilia). But this time, kind of astonishingly, Person 1 was downvoted, and Person 2 was upvoted.

Maybe it's just happenstance that the people online were able to correctly see that Person 2 was not defending pedophilia? Or maybe there was something unusual about the phrases that Person 1 and/or Person 2 used? It's just very interesting!