dadpad wrote:You like talking about pedophilia dont you omsig.
Yes.
Since the earliest years that I am able to remember,
I have been interested in people 's mental processes,
be thay matters of dispassionate logical analysis,
or of emotion. From time to time, what people said and did
seemed
strange and interesting, arousing my curiousity.
I used to ask them about it; I found out that
sometimes thay get MAD
( like Wilso ) when u ask them what thay mean.
( Maybe we r supposed to
pretend to have a full,
accurate & complete understanding of what he said;
I don 't know what Emily Post or Dorothy Manners
has to tell us about that. )
Sexuality, its attendant emotions,
and how people relate to them are inherently interesting to me.
( Of itself, the crowd psychology of observers of sexual phenomena,
including the occasional semi-hysterical lynch mob point of vu,
is inherently intriguing. )
I considered taking a degree in psychology;
to some extent, I regret my failure to have done so.
Agrote did a beautiful job of commenting upon the need to
understand.
I adopt his point of vu, as expressed in his post.
I remember seeing an account of a criminal prosecution on TV
( maybe the 1990s ) of an alleged pedophile, who allegedly had
groped some autistic children who were unable to communicate.
The prosecution offered the testimony of a mental health care professional
of some kind, and qualified him on the record
: the judge found him to be
a medical expert who was able to communicate with autistic children,
who no one else cud;
i.e., he was allowed to act as a translator for the alleged victims.
Upon the basis of his testimony alone defendant was convicted
and lengthy incarceration was inflicted upon him.
In later years, the alleged expert was discredited, as a quack
and defendant was eventually liberated.
I wonder Y the judge was willing to accept his purported ability
to translate ? Was it based upon logical reasoning,
or on an emotion of wishing to not let a possible child groper get away ?
It seems to me, based upon my observations,
that part of our population is
aversive to subjecting emotional phenomena,
particularly
sexual phenomena, to the scrutiny of logic,
in preference to making emotion-based ASSUMPTIONS
against people accused of sexual actions, or even of mere thoughts.
Emotional decisions can have very deleterious results.
In my opinion,
danger lies in ignorance, and safety lies in accurate understanding
of our emotional and jurisprudential environments.
R u aversive to logical analysis of sexual conduct
and of sexual ideation, dadpad ?
Do think we shud stop ?
