Freudian slip of the century: "Let's stop attacking pedophiles"
« previous post | next post »
Senator Ted Cruz making an impassioned speech at a Senate hearing on Tuesday about reaching a “bipartisan agreement” on crime:
“How about we all come together and say, ‘let’s stop murders?’
“How about we all come together and say ‘let’s stop rape?’
“How about we all come together and say ‘let’s stop attacking pedophiles’.”
(Independent [10/1/25]; videos here and here)
I think that Cruz may have wanted to say "pedophilia" to match "murders" and "rape", but that's a rare word that he didn't quite know what it meant or how to handle it, so he made the quick switcheroo with the parallelism of the other preceding two phrases.
Many psychologists recommend against using the term pedophilia to denote sexual activities with children, because not all people with a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (i.e., pedophilia) commit such acts, and child molesters often lack a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children.[1][2] Furthermore, psychological texts define pedophilia as a primary or exclusive attraction towards specifically prepubescent children;[3] attraction towards pubescent children is known as hebephilia and towards post-pubescent adolescents as ephebophilia. See Wikipedia for more information.
Lesson: don't reach for a word you're not sure of.
Selected readings
- "Jingle bells, pedophile" (12/7/09)
- "Pedant" (3/17/20)
[h.t. François Lang]
Stephen Goranson said,
October 1, 2025 @ 7:07 pm
A shame he misspoke, so soon after finally getting something right, being one of the few Trump-allied sorts who said it was not government's proper place to censor late night TV speech.
Jonathan Smith said,
October 1, 2025 @ 8:04 pm
How uncharitable, "attacking pedophiles" is clearly an NP /green
More seriously, without exploring the context cuz duh, TC could conceivably have meant "stop attacking others with pedophilia accusations" But this is likely in fact way too charitable.
jhh said,
October 1, 2025 @ 9:36 pm
In 1988, George H. W. Bush said, "I hope I stand for anti-bigotry, anti-Semitism, and anti-racism."
JPL said,
October 2, 2025 @ 1:55 am
He needed a term for a crime, like "sex-trafficking", or "statutory rape" or "child rape", but whatever he intended to express, which remains a mystery, probably wasn't what he actually expressed. This shows that the act of expressing a thought is not the same act as the act of formulating the thought that was to be expressed. My guess is that he hadn't fully made contact with his thought, which is the job of expression. I assume he didn't intend to express something like, "Let's stop covering up for pedophiles", even though that would have had bipartisan agreement to some extent, but I could be wrong. I can't figure out where the word "attacking" came from. It was a misfire.
Olaf Zimmermann said,
October 2, 2025 @ 3:38 am
From The Guardian, Aug. 30, 2000:
"Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday."
Link: ""
Sigh!
Richard Hershberger said,
October 2, 2025 @ 3:55 am
@Olaf Zimmermann There was a well publicized incident in the 1990s of an executive at some tech company firing an employee for writing about "pedagogy" in an internal memo. Said employee was reinstated once someone found small enough words to explain what "pedagogy" means, and a new directive was put out to only use words that even an executive was likely to understand. One can only assume executive summaries thereafter were written in "Dick and Jane" language.
Philip Taylor said,
October 2, 2025 @ 6:23 am
When my friend and I first heard the songs from Hair in the late 1960's (at which point in time we would have been around 21 or younger), we were unable to work out what the fourth word was in the series "Sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, ????????y" and hypothesised that it was probably "kataracy" (of which none of us, of course, had ever heard, "*kataracy" not being a word in the English language). It took quite some time to discover that the word in question was actually "pederasty".
Philip Taylor said,
October 2, 2025 @ 6:40 am
Pronounced, incidentally, /ˌped ə ˈræs ti/ in the song, whereas John Well’s LPD would suggest /ˈped ə ræst i/.
Olaf Zimmermann said,
October 2, 2025 @ 6:42 am
@Philip Taylor Maybe you can do the archaeology on the following: many moons ago Greek women would put on beards – not because of the pythonesque "Let's go for a stoning", but in order to get their hubbies aroused. [K]not sure if it's apocryphal, though (I came across this snippet a few deads ago, but can not find it any longer/)
David Morris said,
October 2, 2025 @ 7:31 am
Somewhere (here?) I read about a linguistics lecturer who was complained about/reprimanded/fired for talking about homophones.
Olaf Zimmermann said,
October 2, 2025 @ 8:02 am
@David Morris (now here's an old one):
My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots.
When I embarked upon this political campaign, I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead—to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.
At first I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I will do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!
It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath? Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you can possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. And even in his childhood!
Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue exacerbated his own sister when they were both teenagers!
I ask you, my fellow Americans: is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth?
Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background—no, not when you consider the other members of his family:
His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities.
The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.
My opponent's uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.
His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church.
His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature.
His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homo sapien.
His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.
His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.
His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers.
And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.
Now what shall we say about the man himself?
I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.
He perambulated his infant on the street.
He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin.
He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately.
He participated in a seance at a private residence where, among other odd goings-on, there was incense.
He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses.
He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company – and has taken part in such gatherings himself.
He has been deliberately averse to crime in our city streets.
He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes.
Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the U.S. flag.
Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign isms, he has cooly announced his belief in altruism – and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic!
I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear.
The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself. Do your duty.