"Looking out of lust": What this REALLY means for pedophiles

Many men are troubled in some way by Christ's command not to look at a woman or child out of lust. I do support all commands in the Bible that come from God, but this one is often misinterpreted in a way that is spiritually abusive for pedophiles. I look at girls all the time out of lust in public, and don't find myself guilty of any sin. It is how your look that makes it sexual abuse.

Christ says at the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:27-28 KJV:

Ye have heard that it was said of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh upon a woman out of lust hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The Greek root word translated "lust" is επιθυμέω (Latin: epithumeo) and refers not merely to sexual desire for a child, but sexual desire leading to seeking to impose said sexual desire, with the perception of that being fornication (GRK: πορνεία), but instead clear adultery (GRK: μοιχεύω). It is sexual entitlement, meaning wanting sexual relations or control with a child to the point of seeking to impose said want onto a child, leading to child sexual abuse by way of offense perceived. In the case of a young girl, any time I look at her with lustful intent, meaning intent to create a relationship that shouldn't be there and never will exist in God's eyes, I have just committed the abuse already, and must correct my intent.

I am guilty until proven innocent in relation to my own motives in relation to children, meaning I am an entitled, wretched adult whose sin nature means harm towards a child, with me hating children just for existing in relation to them. I must distrust any intent of mine to be around a child I like until I have every reason to believe that I mean well, meaning if I want to make a big step in relating with a child by going to her house, I must be sure both that I have intent other than prurient self-interest, meaning I am willing to be in her company in more wholesome ways that cannot be fetishized, and that I have every reason to believe I won't abuse the child, and no reason to believe that I will abuse the child, with the child's emotional reactions to my presence being a guide. Look for shock and awe type reactions, and apprehensive expressions, or else watch for a child flipping me off and calling me a "creep". 

This method has centered me to not look in a way that pesters or offends a child, meaning I just don't exist to them when I look. They ignore me, and don't notice my presence. Every once and a while, I have an incidental abuse incident with a child where I look at a young girl, and she glares at me, and then I am set straight.

Child sexual abuse is a form of sexual entitlement imposed on a child, perceived by the child, and the Title IX policies in workplaces and schools set a good boundary - menacing/leering to rape/lust murder. All are covered by the Bible as fornication against the child, thus abuse. "Leering" refers to the child's perceptions, not the abuser's, and if the reaction of the victim has immediate reformatory effect on the perpetrator, then it is incidental abuse, meaning everyday sexual abuse against a child.

A child feels threatened by the gaze of a man in particular when he has lustful intent, meaning intent to go up to her that he is holding back, meaning he literally has urges towards children, which is usually a non-issue - most cases of pedophilia are actually just intrusive thoughts that need to be accepted, meaning let go and not fought back. Children have fight or flight instincts that detect dangers to bodily autonomy and other rights regarding autonomy. A bulk of men do have sexual desires towards children meaning individuals under age 18, namely teenagers, and so if you are aware of it in a non-offending light, meaning you know it is wrong but just let the thoughts go by, not fighting them or stuffing them, that is the ultimate sign of non-entitlement in relation to children, so when I see young girls in swimsuits during the summer, simply note their attractiveness, and move on. Children don't mind that. They mind when you look at them to case them out for a possible opportunity of an offense towards a child, in which case abuse starts when the child feels uncomfortable and suns out the glare of the glare of the adult.

No pedophile, by my judgment, is going to Hell, meaning the true pedophiles who abuse no child. There are the pedophiles and the abusers, and a child molester is an abuser who has crossed over and ceases the right to call themselves a pedophile. They blew it, and by then it is too late - the child is harmed for life, and so we need to lock the sick puppy up. We can't help them beyond a certain point, as I don't want my tax dollars going to court ordered treatments when the sex offenders who do want help will find it anyway, meaning I am opposed to court orders as a mandate to treat thugs who refuse to change...All sexual abusers are either defiled parents or defiled adults, depending on their relation to the child, and you can enter the job title of the defiled adult and keep them labeled as "defiled" next to their job title.

The defiled adult fornicators, by my beliefs, are in Hell until they cease their behavior of adult sexual entitlement, in which case God foreknew and knew they were never in Hell to begin with...We are pro-pedophile here at Opposing Parental Entitlement. Pedophiles have the right to diagnose themselves and identify by a clinical condition, and should not feel ashamed by mental health stigma to label themselves such.