Pedophiles?

dlowan

Chemical castration seems to me a good solution - not THE FINAL SOLUTION, there is none, except death - to the case not only of pedophiles but also rapists.

I have a deep despise for pedophiles and rapists. They murder the personality of the victim - or part of it - they are all cowards, abusing weaker people.

Pedophiles and rapists are the lowest of all criminals. Even lowest that professional killers.
I agree with Bibliophile: the presence of a pedophile - or a rapist - in the neighbourhood must be made public (but i don't agree with that kind of justice of the mob, I think Bibliophile is too much conditioned by the IRA conception of justice).

0 Replies

Thetes wrote:

Kristie wrote:
the question you asked is silly. The definition is a person who enjoys sexual acts with children. There is no one set "thing" that defines who a pedophile is.

Errr... I must be phrasing my questions wrong here. I'm not worried about what the definition of a pedophile is. I'm wondering what your own personal opinion on pedophiles are? When you hear the word "pedophile", what's the first thing that comes to mind?

Like I said, don't worry about the dictionary terms. I want to know what YOU think when you hear someone is a pedophile.

To return to the original question.

When I think of paedophiles - firstly I (probably definitionally wrongly - but it is a common distinction when actually working with sexual abuse) distinguish paedophiles - (who I tend to think of as people with a primary orientation towards children, whose interest is obsessional, and who make something of a career of abusing them, and who often have no adult sexual partner - or who enter relationships with a primary aim of securing children to abuse - and who rationalise their acts - or are so damaged that they can feel no remorse or empathy) - from people who also have adult relationships - and may abuse within primarily within their family network - and usually only one or two kids - and who may well come to understand and appreciate the enormity of what they have done - or not. Humans can rationalise almost anything. (I know - ONLY - my work with abused kids tends to affect my perspective.)

One reason for making such a distinction is to attempt, when a crime is discovered, to assess the need to inquire very widely. Paedophiles - as I define them - tend to abuse very large numbers of children - and to place themselves where children are readily available to them - either in their work or volunteer activities, or in their location. (Where I work, they often live near beaches, for instance - or schools etc.)

I have met quite a few of the once-off/limited offender, and also the career offender.

When I think of them, I think of perfectly ordinary looking people - seemingly successful professionals - and also the more obviously creepy looking guy.

I actually think of most of them as tragic figures - though they are extremely dangerous and kids need to be kept safe from them. The ones I have come to know have generally been victims of terrible abuse themselves.. .and so the cycle goes on.....

I DO tend to thinkof them as male - though I have worked with people (very few so far) who have been abused by females.

0 Replies

can anyone answer the question i posed in a previous post:

a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to those who have not reached puberty yet.

this definition could mean that anyone who is past puberty could be a paedophile if they were sexually attracted to those who hadn't.

this means that a paedophile could be in their 20s.

i have heard of women who haven't reached puberty until they were 30.

would a man of 30 be classed as a paedophile for being sexually attracted to such a woman?

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

I am happy I wasn't molested as a child. I didn't say I wish I had been molested. I said I wish I had had an opportunity to have sexual relations with a beautiful female. Molestation is not something I go around looking for.

This is not a very informed position. Molestation does not have, as a prerequisite that the individual not wish for it to happen at the time.

Just because you fantasized of being molested by beautiful women doesn't mean it is not molestation.

Quote:

Maybe it's not the child's want (alone) that would have justified it in my case. Maybe, just maybe it's the fact that I wish it upon my childhood self from my current position of adulthood.

So? Your molestation fantasy continues, dress up and act it out. That's what rape fantasies are.

It's important to be able to distinguish between reality and fantasy, as reality comes with consequences.

Quote:

So what exactly would justify it?

Knowing that it would not be harmful (not possible at the time, despite your current hindsight) because not all of the parties were old enough to give informed consent to the risk.

That is the bare minimum of the requirements, as the societal harm it can cause goes beyond the individuals.

Quote:

This is something between my former self, my current approval as an adult, and a beautiful woman.

When you seek to justify sexual contact with children you take it beyond you and your fantasy.

Quote:

Just how do you propose to know better than me what is and is not justified to me?

What is justified and what you think is justified are wholly separate concepts. You have no basis on which to make an appeal to authority argument here.

Quote:

I can assure you that there would have been no damages.

Even if we assume that you are responsible and well balanced enough to make this decision now it's important to acknowlege that as a child you could not be expected to give informed consent.

Quote:

And if there had been, I would prefer the pleasure along with the damages even from my current perspective.

What damages do you have in mind?

Quote:

Some day you may grow up and realize that not everybody has such a negative view of sex as you.

This is an uncalled for ad hominem argument. I have not said a single negative thing about sex here.

I have merely stated a position in which having sex with minors who can't give informed consent is not justified, despite your pre-pubescent (and apparently lingering) fantasy.

You propose the axiom that if you wanted it it was justified. Have a look at this, it is the documentation of people who created a societal structure along the likes of that which you proposed.

http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Story_of_Davidito

That kid, whose molestation was clearly wanted at his age just killed one of his nannies and committed suicide.

I grew up in this kind of society, and I've heard more apologist arguments for pedophilia than you can conjure and have seen the harm it wrought, even in cases when the adults had no intent to "harm" the child.

I don't need to "grow up" about this, but I think you might. Your adolescent fantasy lacks grounding in reality, which is fine insofar as fantasy goes but is a pisspoor basis for an argument.

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

can anyone answer the question i posed in a previous post:

a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to those who have not reached puberty yet.

this definition could mean that anyone who is past puberty could be a paedophile if they were sexually attracted to those who hadn't.

this means that a paedophile could be in their 20s.

i have heard of women who haven't reached puberty until they were 30.

would a man of 30 be classed as a paedophile for being sexually attracted to such a woman?

Only if he is attracted to her due to pre-pubescent qualities, and his primary sexual attraction (it's usually closer to the rule than the exception) is to pre-pubescent individuals and furthermore only if this condition persists over time.

0 Replies

thanks for the answer

0 Replies

I forgot that an additional criteria that some use is a certain age difference, so if they are both the same age some would not consider the individual a pedophile.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

binnyboy wrote:

I am happy I wasn't molested as a child. I didn't say I wish I had been molested. I said I wish I had had an opportunity to have sexual relations with a beautiful female. Molestation is not something I go around looking for.

This is not a very informed position. Molestation does not have, as a prerequisite that the individual not wish for it to happen at the time.

Just because you fantasized of being molested by beautiful women doesn't mean it is not molestation.

Perhaps you should use a dictionary before spouting accusations of others being uninformed. The only (secondary) definition of molestation that does not include something along the lines of "unwilling" is when it says "improper". I addressed this already, in saying that you are not the authority when it comes to what is improper. No one is.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
Maybe it's not the child's want (alone) that would have justified it in my case. Maybe, just maybe it's the fact that I wish it upon my childhood self from my current position of adulthood.

So? Your molestation fantasy continues, dress up and act it out. That's what rape fantasies are.

It's important to be able to distinguish between reality and fantasy, as reality comes with consequences.

Again, you are misusing molestation here.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
So what exactly would justify it?

Knowing that it would not be harmful (not possible at the time, despite your current hindsight) because not all of the parties were old enough to give informed consent to the risk.

That is the bare minimum of the requirements, as the societal harm it can cause goes beyond the individuals.

That's just the thing. We do know now that it would not have been harmful. You'll see that I haven't proposed any course of action like the morons you mention later in your post. But you have just agreed that it would have been justified had we known it would do no damage. So let me pursue this farther and ask a question (I have never thought along these lines before... I just want to hear your answer): If we had been able to know that no harm whatsoever would come of it, and both parties wanted it (me being the child, so don't go casting me as what I'm not), would it have been just fine and dandy in your view for me to have had sex as a 6 year old?

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
This is something between my former self, my current approval as an adult, and a beautiful woman.

When you seek to justify sexual contact with children you take it beyond you and your fantasy.

I'm not seeking to justify sexual contact with anyone but my former self. Are you implying here that my partner may have become a child molester because of her exposure to sex with a child? If you're implying this, say it... don't beat around the bush.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
Just how do you propose to know better than me what is and is not justified to me?

What is justified and what you think is justified are wholly separate concepts. You have no basis on which to make an appeal to authority argument here.

Look justify up. You will find something like dictionary.com's def: (first and most relevant)
To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid

So what you have said is similar to
"What is right and what you think is right are wholly separate concepts." I disagree with this wholly, as I find "right and wrong" to be highly subjective subject matter.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
I can assure you that there would have been no damages.

Even if we assume that you are responsible and well balanced enough to make this decision now it's important to acknowlege that as a child you could not be expected to give informed consent.

see question above

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
And if there had been, I would prefer the pleasure along with the damages even from my current perspective.

What damages do you have in mind?

beats me... as I said I don't think there would be any. I was addressing what you seemed to imply: damage to myself in the form of unhappiness (evidenced in your insiting upon using the word molestation to artificially convey a negative connotation on my "fantasy" as you so chidingly put it)

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
Some day you may grow up and realize that not everybody has such a negative view of sex as you.

This is an uncalled for ad hominem argument. I have not said a single negative thing about sex here.

I have merely stated a position in which having sex with minors who can't give informed consent is not justified, despite your pre-pubescent (and apparently lingering) fantasy.

Informed of what?

Craven de Kere wrote:

You propose the axiom that if you wanted it it was justified.

I don't think I did... hmmm maybe I'll have to re-read.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Have a look at this, it is the documentation of people who created a societal structure along the likes of that which you proposed.

http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Story_of_Davidito

That kid, whose molestation was clearly wanted at his age just killed one of his nannies and committed suicide.

I grew up in this kind of society, and I've heard more apologist arguments for pedophilia than you can conjure and have seen the harm it wrought, even in cases when the adults had no intent to "harm" the child.

I don't need to "grow up" about this, but I think you might. Your adolescent fantasy lacks grounding in reality, which is fine insofar as fantasy goes but is a pisspoor basis for an argument.

Here I will respect your opinion, as you say it is based on observation and personal experience. I read the story it is tragic. More on this later.

0 Replies

Question Binny; Since you're convinced your former self's desire for sexual contact with a beautiful woman would have absolved her of culpability... would that also hold true for a child other than your former self as well? Surely you're not the only desirous kid ever to be born?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Question Binny; Since you're convinced your former self's desire for sexual contact with a beautiful woman would have absolved her of culpability... would that also hold true for a child other than your former self as well? Surely you're not the only desirous kid ever to be born?

I think you've also misread. It's not my former self's desire... it's my current approval. That's what's absolving her. And if there were a person, like you, for instance, that were of the same mindset as me, it absolves people that might have had sexual contact with your former self. That's all I've said so far. I dunno if this can or can't be brought any farther. I have never determined to have an opinion on anything of the sort one way or another. Seems like some (the article) might have it wrong. But I've never proposed any action on it, and I find it likely I never will. I'm just relating an unfortunate case to anyone who wants to listen.

0 Replies

You didn't ask me Binny - but - yes, it would have been wrong - if for no other reason than that it is against the law.

The law is made to protect all children.

Even IF your adult view of the effect upon your younger self is true - (and lengthy experience with abused kids makes me very sceptical - but, let's accept it - you know yourself best) - the law is not something we follow sometimes and not others - especially around crimes with victims. And you accept, I think, that overwhelmingly sexual abuse is harmful. (Deeply harmful, both research and extensive clinical prractice tell me.)

If the laws about child abuse are to be obeyed only when we think it is a good idea, they have no effect (well, they have little enough effect anyway - they need strengthening, not weakening). Almost no abuser ever thinks that the laws ought to apply to THEM.

I think that enough reason to have made sexual contact between this putative woman and your younger self wrong.

I might add, as Craven has pointed out, thast fantasy and reality can be very different things when it comes to sexual matters.

It is adults' job to ensure that chidren and young people may develop sexually - with any attendant fantasy, flirting etc. - in safety.

0 Replies

I didn't even like girls until 7th grade or so and can identify with you not at all. I totally disagree with you about culpability in any real setting. Adults who have sex with children, regardless of a child's possible desire, would get to choose their method of execution if it were up to me. NO exceptions. I find your definitional disputes disgusting and do not wish to discuss this with you further. I do hope Craven does.

0 Replies

"You propose the axiom that if you wanted it it was justified. Have a look at this, it is the documentation of people who created a societal structure along the likes of that which you proposed.

http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Story_of_Davidito "

I so hope that was not sitting identifiably on the net for all to read while that young man was still alive!!!!!

Edit: Ah - no - 17/1/05 web-site created.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I didn't even like girls until 7th grade or so and can identify with you not at all. I totally disagree with you about culpability in any real setting. Adults who have sex with children, regardless of a child's possible desire, would get to choose their method of execution if it were up to me. NO exceptions. I find your definitional disputes disgusting and do not wish to discuss this with you further. I do hope Craven does.

My disputes are not definitional. You have mistaken my statements. Or at least you speak as though you have mistaken them. As one might read, I have not suggested any real settings. It is impossible that my current self and my former self should coexist. I am arguing that it would have been justified, in retrospect. At the time, one could not have known whether it would be justified or not. But hindsight is 20/20 (sometimes). And we can end our discussion if you want. I'm wary of people that like to make blanket statements.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:

Mistrust those in whom the impulse to punish is strong.

0 Replies

Your argument is compelling, dlowan, but I'm not convinced... yet... I may come around.

I think you're right in what you have implied, namely that the vast majority of child sex is destructive, and that's why we have laws. The laws are meant to protect the people, and the having of these laws seems to be the best answer we have come up with so far. This ties into the social contract. I don't believe so much in right and wrong, but I do have a lot of confidence in the social contract. And to forsake the social contract by breaking the law probably should (I don't like using the word should in this way) result in exclusion from the social contract, to whatever end that may be. I wouldn't call it wrong, but I'd say that their 'rights' ought not be protected under the social contract (which means they could be punished).

BUT

we must remember that stupid laws have been around for a long time. I could spout a great many for shock value, but we can forego that. So, while following the law may be best for cohesion of the social contract, the law may very well be stupid (or as you might call it, wrong).

So my point of contention is that while it may not have been appropriate due to the laws (and more fundamentally, the social contract), I would not choose to use the word 'wrong'.

Let me say it this way, too. Members of a society must conform to the will of the society in order to reap the great benefits it has to offer. So under our society it is always inappropriate to kill people for the reason (among others) that we have collectively decided it so. But if we had collectively decided it to be law that we all touch our noses three times daily, failure to complete this task would be as inappropriate as murder in the sense described. But would it be wrong to not touch your nose three times daily?

But maybe I am misinterpreting your point.

Quote:

It is adults' job to ensure that chidren and young people may develop sexually - with any attendant fantasy, flirting etc. - in safety.

And I agree with this completely. We should be willing to pay great costs to ensure this.

0 Replies

I agree with Nietzsche, which is why I stifled my impulse to judge you based on what you've written so far and recommend you take one for the team. I haven't read what you wrote to Dlowan and likely won't or anything else you write on this thread. For what it's worth, it is likely just the subject that's disgusting me, more than what anyone's written here, and I see no profit in being further disgusted. I'm confident that Dlowan or Craven will give you far better reasoning and fairer treatment on this subject anyway. Good night.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Your argument is compelling, dlowan, but I'm not convinced... yet... I may come around.

I think you're right in what you have implied, namely that the vast majority of child sex is destructive, and that's why we have laws. The laws are meant to protect the people, and the having of these laws seems to be the best answer we have come up with so far. This ties into the social contract. I don't believe so much in right and wrong, but I do have a lot of confidence in the social contract. And to forsake the social contract by breaking the law probably should (I don't like using the word should in this way) result in exclusion from the social contract, to whatever end that may be. I wouldn't call it wrong, but I'd say that their 'rights' ought not be protected under the social contract (which means they could be punished).

BUT

we must remember that stupid laws have been around for a long time. I could spout a great many for shock value, but we can forego that. So, while following the law may be best for cohesion of the social contract, the law may very well be stupid (or as you might call it, wrong).

So my point of contention is that while it may not have been appropriate due to the laws (and more fundamentally, the social contract), I would not choose to use the word 'wrong'.

Let me say it this way, too. Members of a society must conform to the will of the society in order to reap the great benefits it has to offer. So under our society it is always inappropriate to kill people for the reason (among others) that we have collectively decided it so. But if we had collectively decided it to be law that we all touch our noses three times daily, failure to complete this task would be as inappropriate as murder in the sense described. But would it be wrong to not touch your nose three times daily?

But maybe I am misinterpreting your point.

Quote:
It is adults' job to ensure that chidren and young people may develop sexually - with any attendant fantasy, flirting etc. - in safety.

And I agree with this completely. We should be willing to pay great costs to ensure this.

Ah well, I shall not quibble re a logomachy - I think we are basically in agreement.

Yes - the silly law is a good point - but not one, I think we both agree, that applies in this case - (but it is why I spoke especially of crimes with a victim.)

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I agree with Nietzsche, which is why I stifled my impulse to judge you based on what you’ve written so far and recommend you take one for the team. I haven’t read what you wrote to Dlowan and likely won’t… or anything else you write on this thread. For what it’s worth, it is likely just the subject that’s disgusting me, more than what anyone’s written here, and I see no profit in being further disgusted. I’m confident that Dlowan or Craven will give you far better reasoning and fairer treatment on this subject anyway. Good night.

That whole disgust thing is something else I have a "thing" about - as you might predict!

I guess my work has led me to have to confront this stuff again and again and again - and I think it as well that as a society we do so - until our disgust has worn off to the point where we can actually look in a calm and reasoned way at the issue.

The disgust has been a factor, I think, in allowing paedophile behaviour to continue with few real checks:

- because we do not want to face it and deal with it, and hence push it under the carpet, or do not believe, or rationalise the behaviour in colleagues and friends and family members away, and move them on (as the churches, just as an example did so often)

- because our disgust has a role in making victims feel disgust for themselves, and hence not disclose

- because disgust makes people deny or rationalise floridly their own impulses, detracting from their ability to confront honestly their tendencies and deal with them if possible and ask for help with them.

- because when we imbue something with monstrousness and inconceivability we can fail to recognize what is under our noses - and we make it very hard for offenders to face up to themselves squarely.

When something is unspeakable or unmentionable I think it tends to fester away in the dark, like a great fungus. This has occurred for so long - I see generation after generation of abuse in darkness and denial - both in families and institutions.

I do not mean we do not condemn, and outlaw - but when we turn away in denial I think we do great harm - I prefer to look at things with calmness, clarity and compassion.

As a therapist, for instance, if I fail to understand the complexity of feelings a child has - if I neglect the often very real love and regard a child may have for an abuser, and fail to allow honest expression and understanding of this, I fail in my job. If I fail to appreciate that a child may have felt strong physical pleasure during abuse, and allow them to admit this without shame or guilt, I cannot help them heal. If I do not appreciate the specialness and power they may have felt in their relationship with their abuser, I collude with the damage they have suffered.

The anger and negativity of reactions to abuse are relatively easy to deal with - often it is the positive feelings that are the killers. I have to contain these in effective therapy - and I think as a society we need to appreciate the complexity and messiness of being human without resorting to denial and closing off if we are to change things.

Blimey - what an epistle!

0 Replies

I don't know what that phrase you used means! Smile

And yes, our laws regarding this matter are particularly important. I just think they failed me as an individual case. I took one for the team Laughing

Sure am glad I don't have to blow my brains out for what I have said here!

0 Replies

Good on you Deb. You're a very special person. I have a hard enough time with offering a shoulder in the domestic violence threads. Makes me want to book a flight and eradicate a cancer somewhere... if you know what I mean and I know you do. The women are usually too nutty already to do what they know needs to be done (leave). I lost sleep on that recent Charms issue. Sad

I'll keep pitching in elsewhere and you take care of this. Judging by your reaction to Binny it sounds like I didn't read enough even to get his point. (Doubly glad I didn't advise taking one for the team).

As for understanding actual perps of such crimes? Other than identifying the traits I see no reason to identify with them whatsoever. That's for you, not me. Child molesters, rapists and every other perpetrator of violent crime against women and children can all be cured with the same solution in my book. I'll not be convinced that a zero tolerance and swift permanent solutions wouldn't drastically reduce violent crime and the tolerance of it after a few generations. Some crimes are inexcusable and therefore any chance of a repeat offence that can be avoided is inexcusable to me as well. Let's not derail the thread any further with this sidebar, though. We're very well schooled in each other's positions here already.

Suffice to say, this isn't one I intend to even try to view rationally. Innocent or guilty is my only concern. I'll recognize no extenuating circumstances on this one and you can pity the monster who crosses my people in this category. I promise you I won't.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know