Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Paedophile Next Door

12467…15

Comments

  • #152
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nope we are just miles apart in how we evaluate your conflation of attraction and action, and how we select those we trust based on more than who or what they are attracted to. As I said, the people I WOULD leave my children with are trusted for a multitude of reasons. Few, if any, of which would be over ridden or negated by learning of a previously unknown sexual attraction. I have no suspicion whatsoever that there is any actual difference between us in our dedication to, or interest in, the safety of our children.

    Well let's hope for the sake of your children that your trust isn't abused ........ I would feel bad enough if something happened to my children as it is but if it was because I trusted someone who I knew to be sexually attracted to children and still put them at risk ........... I wouldn't even be able to look them in the eye or look at myself in the mirror ......... how would you even begin to explain to them how "daddy let them down" ......... hopefully you're "theory" is sound :(


  • #153
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Well let's hope for the sake of your children that your trust isn't abused

    Agreed. But this is also true of anyone we ever leave our children with. These are the calls we make. I just make it based on the complete data set I have on a person, not one single aspect of it as you appear to. Otherwise, I see little to no difference between us, our motives, our agendas, or our goals.


  • #154
    looking_around
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I agree with most of this post ........... however I want to clarify something .......... are you saying that some paedophiles take jobs as teachers/childminders etc. because they have a great "love" of children and want to be around them but would never dream of hurting a child???
    Or am I reading that wrong :confused:

    No, but I understand how it comes across that way.

    I'm saying that some do....with no intention of ever harming a child, and there's no reason to assume they will ever harm a child.

    They are human, they understand right from wrong. They may be attracted to children that doesn't mean they want to harm the child and they know that pursuing their attraction would be harming the child.

    We have no way of knowing how many pedophiles are out there. Many will love just about everything about children, not just attraction, how they act, their innocence etc. It makes sense that these people will do what they can to work with children, because they like children, not because they want to harm them.


  • #155
    looking_around
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I said it's not good enough for me .......... so you'd happily trust a paedophile alone with your child if he promises you he won't rape your child???

    I don't think we can realistically compare grown men and women who are sexually attracted to each other to paedophiles ........ can we? :confused:

    I can't imagine how sexually frustrated I would get if I could never ever relieve my sexual urges with another person ......... for the rest of my life!!! :eek:

    FYI, many paedophiles are also attracted to adults...shocker I know! :rolleyes:
    So there's dress up...there's cgi/fictitious child porn. Which considering porn itself has lowered rape statistics, so should fictitious child porn.

    It's not like they spend their lives desperate for sex.


  • #156
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Agreed. But this is also true of anyone we ever leave our children with. These are the calls we make. I just make it based on the complete data set I have on a person, not one single aspect of it as you appear to. Otherwise, I see little to no difference between us, our motives, our agendas, or our goals.

    Agreed??? :confused: Jesus that's a casual approach to your children's safety :eek:

    There's a difference between trusting someone with your children because you feel you know them well enough and you have no reason to feel otherwise and leaving your children with someone you know to be sexually attracted to children ......... you must (I hope!!) be in the minority parent-wise.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Agreed??? :confused: Jesus that's a casual approach to your children's safety

    Nothing I have said so far is casual. It is very in-depth and thought out. I feel you have now just moved from discussing this with me, to simply misrepresentation of me and what I have been saying. What for, I simply do not know. Or care.
    MadDog76 wrote: »
    you must (I hope!!) be in the minority parent-wise.

    The two posts just above yours would suggest otherwise as they are applying the exact same thinking to their posts as I have to mine.


  • #158
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    looking_around wrote: »
    No, but I understand how it comes across that way.

    I'm saying that some do....with no intention of ever harming a child, and there's no reason to assume they will ever harm a child.

    They are human, they understand right from wrong. They may be attracted to children that doesn't mean they want to harm the child and they know that pursuing their attraction would be harming the child.

    We have no way of knowing how many pedophiles are out there. Many will love just about everything about children, not just attraction, how they act, their innocence etc. It makes sense that these people will do what they can to work with children, because they like children, not because they want to harm them.

    That's very very shaky ground .......... I love children, lot's of people love children ........ but being sexually attracted to children and seeking them out through work or otherwise is crossing a line


  • #159
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    looking_around wrote: »
    FYI, many paedophiles are also attracted to adults...shocker I know! :rolleyes:
    So there's dress up...there's cgi/fictitious child porn. Which considering porn itself has lowered rape statistics, so should fictitious child porn.

    It's not like they spend their lives desperate for sex.

    Children are more vulnerable than adults .......... shocker! :rolleyes:


  • #160
    looking_around
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Well let's hope for the sake of your children that your trust isn't abused ........ I would feel bad enough if something happened to my children as it is but if it was because I trusted someone who I knew to be sexually attracted to children and still put them at risk ........... I wouldn't even be able to look them in the eye or look at myself in the mirror ......... how would you even begin to explain to them how "daddy let them down" ......... hopefully you're "theory" is sound :(

    Because uncle Joe who is "normal"..is more trustworthy?

    This is only your assumptions, and less about the safety of the child.

    Most abuse happens by people we know, by people we assume to be safe and normal.

    Think I'd prefer the paedophile who has the courage to tell me, than the one who doesn't. Think about it, the one who tells you, simply by alerting you, is less of a risk, than just about any other person. They made you aware.

    Of course, I wouldn't be expecting them to add it to CV's or anything. But ifI truly trusted a person, I wouldn't stop trusting them over a fetish.
    (being attracted to children, is less orientation and more fetish.)


  • #161
    looking_around
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Children are more vulnerable than adults .......... shocker! :rolleyes:
    :confused:
    eh...I think you missed the fact, that my post was about them not being as sexually frustrated as you make them out to be.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nothing I have said so far is casual. It is very in-depth and thought out. I feel you have now just moved from discussing this with me, to simply misrepresentation of me and what I have been saying. What for, I simply do not know. Or care.



    The two posts just above yours would suggest otherwise as they are applying the exact same thinking to their posts as I have to mine.

    I am not misrepresenting you ......... I'm replying to the the posts you wrote, they are your words


  • #163
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I am not misrepresenting you ......... I'm replying to the the posts you wrote, they are your words

    Calling my attitude to this subject and the thought I put into it "casual" is in fact a misrepresentation of everything I have written. Your goal in doing this is unknown. Nor do I care.


  • #164
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    looking_around wrote: »
    Because uncle Joe who is "normal"..is more trustworthy?

    This is only your assumptions, and less about the safety of the child.

    Most abuse happens by people we know, by people we assume to be safe and normal.

    Think I'd prefer the paedophile who has the courage to tell me, than the one who doesn't. Think about it, the one who tells you, simply by alerting you, is less of a risk, than just about any other person. They made you aware.

    Of course, I wouldn't be expecting them to add it to CV's or anything. But ifI truly trusted a person, I wouldn't stop trusting them over a fetish.
    (being attracted to children, is less orientation and more fetish.)

    It's always risky and if Uncle Joe told me he was sexually attracted to my children then he would not be babysitting ........... because that would just be putting my children in harm's way.

    Maybe the paedophile is telling you he is attracted to your children as warning, a cry for help ......... which shouldn't be ignored.


  • #165
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    looking_around wrote: »
    :confused:
    eh...I think you missed the fact, that my post was about them not being as sexually frustrated as you make them out to be.

    How sexually frustrated would you be if you'd never had sex with the object of your desires?


  • #166
    Eamondomc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭Eamondomc


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I am genuinely shocked to know that you have children of your own and would allow them to be knowingly left alone with a "trusted" paedophile ........ we are miles apart on our thoughts regarding the safety of our children.

    Me too I think its really f***ed up thinking and tempting fate.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nope we are just miles apart in how we evaluate your conflation of attraction and action, and how we select those we trust based on more than who or what they are attracted to. As I said, the people I WOULD leave my children with are trusted for a multitude of reasons. Few, if any, of which would be over ridden or negated by learning of a previously unknown sexual attraction. I have no suspicion whatsoever that there is any actual difference between us in our dedication to, or interest in, the safety of our children.

    I d say there is a good bit of a difference and to me your thinking is irresponsible.
    I wouldnt let a known thief mind my money and I certainly let a known paedophile whether he or she never acted on their urges mind children.
    Thats my attitude.


  • #167
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Nothing irresponsible about it. As I said my choice about who I trust in my life is based on a full data set about them. You know nothing about these people, or what I base it on, so you have no basis to comment.


  • #168
    Eamondomc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭Eamondomc


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nothing irresponsible about it. As I said my choice about who I trust in my life is based on a full data set about them. You know nothing about these people, or what I base it on, so you have no basis to comment.

    Sorry but this a public thread and I will comment if I wish. You make public comments that I think are irresponsible and I will answer them with my thoughts. Not trying to cause offence but I just dont agree with you.


  • #169
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I do not recall suggesting you can not or should not comment. So you can pocket the feux offence at being asked not to. I simply said you have no basis for the comment. Learn the difference.

    As I said the full data set on these people are what I base my judgement on, and that data set would not be altered significantly by such a revelation in any way that would even make me suspect ill will or harmful intent. They are just not capable of it. You are not seeing past one single attribute, because you do not have that data set. You know nothing about them. Trust is built on more than merely knowing what compulsions a person has, but on your judgement of what that person can or will or would do with them.

    But this is not about me, despite two of you making it about me. It is about the original point I was making which is that curtailing the freedoms of people for simply stepping forward and saying they have this attraction, is both useless AND harmful. A) It would stop them stepping forward. B) The people who step forward in the first place are NOT the people we need to be worrying about.


  • #170
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I am genuinely shocked to know that you have children of your own and would allow them to be knowingly left alone with a "trusted" paedophile
    Yeh I definitely wouldn't be comfortable about doing so.
    Even though I'd deem it very unlikely for something to happen, I simply couldn't be 100% certain.


  • #171
    Murray007
    Registered Users Posts: 249 ✭✭Murray007


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nothing irresponsible about it. As I said my choice about who I trust in my life is based on a full data set about them. You know nothing about these people, or what I base it on, so you have no basis to comment.

    If this is true and not trolling, my heart bleeds for the kids. Russian roulette and you will say you we're let down if something happens, but really you are letting them down from the start off.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    LoganRice
    Registered Users Posts: 424 ✭✭LoganRice


    Good luck in getting help to all the pedophiles of Boards.ie


  • #173
    Eamondomc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭Eamondomc


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I do not recall suggesting you can not or should not comment. So you can pocket the feux offence at being asked not to. I simply said you have no basis for the comment. Learn the difference.

    As I said the full data set on these people are what I base my judgement on, and that data set would not be altered significantly by such a revelation in any way that would even make me suspect ill will or harmful intent. They are just not capable of it. You are not seeing past one single attribute, because you do not have that data set. You know nothing about them. Trust is built on more than merely knowing what compulsions a person has, but on your judgement of what that person can or will or would do with them.

    Well fair play to you for your good attitude but my attitude is prevention is better than cure so I am just saying I would not put children in my care under the care of a known paedophile.


  • #174
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    Yeh I definitely wouldn't be comfortable about doing so.
    Even though I'd deem it very unlikely for something to happen, I simply couldn't be 100% certain.

    We are never 100% certain of any person we leave our kids with. We make a judgement call when we do it. Every time.
    Murray007 wrote: »
    If this is true and not trolling, my heart bleeds for the kids. Russian roulette and you will say you we're let down if something happens, but really you are letting them down from the start off.

    We would be let down regardless of who betrays our trust.

    But once again I repeat this is not about me. My point still stands that the idea of curtailing the freedoms and more of people who simply step forward and say "Look I have this attraction, I do not want it, what can I do?" is simply a poor point of view. It is both useless (because it would stop people stepping forward if this is what they would be met with) and ineffectual (because it is the people who do not step forward that are the ones to worry about).
    Eamondomc wrote: »
    Well fair play to you for your good attitude but my attitude is prevention is better than cure so I am just saying I would not put children in my care under the care of a known paedophile.

    And "prevention" to me is not leaving children under the care of someone you do not trust as much as you possibly can. And the people I trust I trust for a multitude of reasons, many of which in isolation would not be curtailed by such a revelation about their sexuality. But taken in total, together, as a whole..... as I said those of you who do not know the people I know, or what I trust them, have the right to comment, but no basis to do so.

    Nor is this about me, despite the number of you wanting to make it so. It is about the point I was actually making, which no one has actually addressed in their desire to make it about me.


  • #175
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    We are never 100% certain of any person we leave our kids with. We make a judgement call when we do it. Every time.
    The more knowledge we have though, the more precautions we should take, IMO.

    It's a position I reckon that guy Eddie on last night's programme would understand.


  • #176
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Laura Palmer wrote: »
    The more knowledge we have though, the more precautions we should take, IMO.

    The more knowledge we have the better a judgement call we can make. And it is the sum total of the knowledge of the people I trust that I make that judgement call on. And such a revelation would simply become part OF that data set. And for some people it would influence my judgement call on the entire data set. For some people it would not. Simple as.

    All of this being entirely hypothetical of course because not one person I know, let alone the trusted core I speak of, has ever made any such revelation.


  • #177
    Eamondomc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭Eamondomc


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    We are never 100% certain of any person we leave our kids with. We make a judgement call when we do it. Every time.



    We would be let down regardless of who betrays our trust.

    But once again I repeat this is not about me. My point still stands that the idea of curtailing the freedoms and more of people who simply step forward and say "Look I have this attraction, I do not want it, what can I do?" is simply a poor point of view. It is both useless (because it would stop people stepping forward if this is what they would be met with) and ineffectual (because it is the people who do not step forward that are the ones to worry about).

    Look at it this way, is there an educational or sporting or indeed any type of gathering place in Ireland now for children that would let a known paedophile
    work with let alone care for children who are members of said gathering. I think not but maybe you know some.


  • #178
    Murray007
    Registered Users Posts: 249 ✭✭Murray007


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    The more knowledge we have the better a judgement call we can make. And it is the sum total of the knowledge of the people I trust that I make that judgement call on. And such a revelation would simply become part OF that data set. And for some people it would influence my judgement call on the entire data set. For some people it would not. Simple as.

    All of this being entirely hypothetical of course because not one person I know, let alone the trusted core I speak of, has ever made any such revelation.

    Bet a lot of money the closest you have had to a child yourself is a pocket baby!

    The alternative is the the ideologies of the pedophile network, your data set is not on the same platform as people who don't believe that sexual activity with a child is ever tolerable.


  • #179
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    The childminding thing is something that's possibly difficult for some folks to know until actually in the situation.


  • #180
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Eamondomc wrote: »
    Look at it this way, is there an educational or sporting or indeed any type of gathering place in Ireland now for children that would let a known paedophile
    work with let alone care for children who are members of said gathering. I think not but maybe you know some.

    Of course not, that is what is in discussion here is it not? The idea of a change in our thinking. A way to foster a society where rather than hide in the shadows with such an attraction people can come forward and say "Look I have this, what can we do about it together?"

    The point being that the idea being espoused that such people should come forward... but our first response should be to slap all kinds of curtailed freedoms on them, monitoring, restricted movement and accesses, and more (one user even suggested they should be instantly and without question simply removed from society) is clearly not the clear headed and intellectual response to the idea.

    As multiple users, not just me, have pointed out... the best we are going to achieve with this attitude is to simply maintain the status quo of these people simply not standing up and coming out with it.

    And the complete abject uselessness of the attitude becomes clear when you realize that it is likely NOT the people who do step forward with it that need to be targeted or worried about anyway. It is the ones who do NOT.

    One dreams of a medical advancement in this area anyway. I hope we one day make it. We are becoming better and better at identifying thoughts, emotions and responses through all kinds of neural imagining techniques, measurements of galvanic skin response and much more. One hopes some day the test for paedophilia will be as simple as a test for fever.

    But one also wonders if paranoia about paedophiles, especially those who openly admit to it and seek assistance, is even that useful. Every person working with our children in any way are potential risks. Some might not even know themselves they are a risk until one day they find themselves alone with them and in a position to do something and suddenly dark thoughts well up that were never there before. What truly useful effect does our well meant paranoia bring us?

    I would rather the structures that provide opportunity be over hauled to deal with this. An admitted paedophile working in a kindergarten is a lot less disturbing to me than the idea the working structure of such a kindergarten allows for one to get alone with a child in such a way, for such a time period, as to allow them to conduct the kinds of acts that every single person on this thread, myself included, strongly wish to prevent. THAT would be more worthy of being looked at than anything else I can think of.
    Murray007 wrote: »
    Bet a lot of money the closest you have had to a child yourself is a pocket baby!

    Given I have two children I am happy to take that bet. It is christmas time, I could use the cash.
    Murray007 wrote: »
    The alternative is the the ideologies of the pedophile network, your data set is not on the same platform as people who don't believe that sexual activity with a child is ever tolerable.

    No idea what you think you mean by this or what your point is. I certainly doubt anyone on this thread thinks sexual activity with a child is tolerable. And I am certainly unconvinced that the majority of paedophiles do either.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    animum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 134 ✭✭animum


    great film starring Kevin bacon...the woodsman....on Netflix...tells the story from the paedophiles point of view...

    for me it was really conflicting, I didn't want the main character to harm any child, but it was to save him and the child...really got me thinking from another angle..

    these people are people, regular everyday people, that battle demons I hope to never have to battle anything like it myself..

    I think alot of child abuse cases, are abuse of power, alcoholism, and alot of other factors, celibacy in priests, mental health issues etc...

    paedophilia I think is different, and is a sexual orientation, that actually upsets the mind it is in...



    a child abuser is not necessarily a paedophile. and vice versa


  • #182
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,824 ✭✭✭floggg


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    How sexually frustrated would you be if you'd never had sex with the object of your desires?

    Well how do celibate priests manage then?

    Yes, there are plenty who did commit abuses, but far more who never did. Being celibate doesn't automatically turn you into a rapist.


  • #183
    ALiasEX
    Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭ALiasEX


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I said it's not good enough for me .......... so you'd happily trust a paedophile alone with your child if he promises you he won't rape your child???

    I don't think we can realistically compare grown men and women who are sexually attracted to each other to paedophiles ........ can we? :confused:

    I can't imagine how sexually frustrated I would get if I could never ever relieve my sexual urges with another person ......... for the rest of my life!!! :eek:
    Is masturbation not relief enough when the alternative is hurting someone? As soon as you couldn't have consensual sex ever again with your attractions you would resort to unconsensual sex?


  • #184
    ALiasEX
    Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭ALiasEX


    looking_around wrote: »
    (being attracted to children, is less orientation and more fetish.)
    What do you base this on?


  • #185
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    animum wrote: »
    great film starring Kevin bacon...the woodsman....on Netflix...tells the story from the paedophiles point of view...

    for me it was really conflicting, I didn't want the main character to harm any child, but it was to save him and the child...really got me thinking from another angle..

    these people are people, regular everyday people, that battle demons I hope to never have to battle anything like it myself..

    I think alot of child abuse cases, are abuse of power, alcoholism, and alot of other factors, celibacy in priests, mental health issues etc...

    paedophilia I think is different, and is a sexual orientation, that actually upsets the mind it is in...



    a child abuser is not necessarily a paedophile. and vice versa

    I've seen that movie and it is quite powerful, thought-provoking and moving at times .......... it's worth noting that Kevin Bacon's character (the paedophile) acknowledges that he needs to avoid contact with children as much as possible if he is to have any chance at suppressing his sexual urges.

    It feels odd to be rooting for a paedophile character in a movie ......... but I was rooting for him!!


  • #186
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    floggg wrote: »
    Well how do celibate priests manage then?

    Yes, there are plenty who did commit abuses, but far more who never did. Being celibate doesn't automatically turn you into a rapist.

    Nuns, other priests, members of the congregation, prostitutes and of course children ..........


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    ALiasEX wrote: »
    Is masturbation not relief enough when the alternative is hurting someone? As soon as you couldn't have consensual sex ever again with your attractions you would resort to unconsensual sex?

    As a human being I need the touch of another human being in order to be fully satisfied, it's natural ..........


  • #188
    dar100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭dar100


    SparkySpitfire wrote: »
    Its in the DSM and the ICD as a mental disorder so yes.

    There are many 'disorders' in both the DSM and ICD 10. Mainly full of BS though


  • #189
    Murray007
    Registered Users Posts: 249 ✭✭Murray007


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Of course not, that is what is in discussion here is it not? The idea of a change in our thinking. A way to foster a society where rather than hide in the shadows with such an attraction people can come forward and say "Look I have this, what can we do about it together?"

    The point being that the idea being espoused that such people should come forward... but our first response should be to slap all kinds of curtailed freedoms on them, monitoring, restricted movement and accesses, and more (one user even suggested they should be instantly and without question simply removed from society) is clearly not the clear headed and intellectual response to the idea.

    As multiple users, not just me, have pointed out... the best we are going to achieve with this attitude is to simply maintain the status quo of these people simply not standing up and coming out with it.

    And the complete abject uselessness of the attitude becomes clear when you realize that it is likely NOT the people who do step forward with it that need to be targeted or worried about anyway. It is the ones who do NOT.

    One dreams of a medical advancement in this area anyway. I hope we one day make it. We are becoming better and better at identifying thoughts, emotions and responses through all kinds of neural imagining techniques, measurements of galvanic skin response and much more. One hopes some day the test for paedophilia will be as simple as a test for fever.

    But one also wonders if paranoia about paedophiles, especially those who openly admit to it and seek assistance, is even that useful. Every person working with our children in any way are potential risks. Some might not even know themselves they are a risk until one day they find themselves alone with them and in a position to do something and suddenly dark thoughts well up that were never there before. What truly useful effect does our well meant paranoia bring us?

    I would rather the structures that provide opportunity be over hauled to deal with this. An admitted paedophile working in a kindergarten is a lot less disturbing to me than the idea the working structure of such a kindergarten allows for one to get alone with a child in such a way, for such a time period, as to allow them to conduct the kinds of acts that every single person on this thread, myself included, strongly wish to prevent. THAT would be more worthy of being looked at than anything else I can think of.



    Given I have two children I am happy to take that bet. It is christmas time, I could use the cash.



    No idea what you think you mean by this or what your point is. I certainly doubt anyone on this thread thinks sexual activity with a child is tolerable. And I am certainly unconvinced that the majority of paedophiles do either.



    Hold on, what do you think a pedophile is, whether active or not, sexual activity with child is either an aspiration or a muted fantasy. Either way do not take the risk with a child. You will be let down they will be destroyed.


  • #190
    kjl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,127 ✭✭✭kjl


    floggg wrote: »
    Well how do celibate priests manage then?

    Yes, there are plenty who did commit abuses, but far more who never did. Being celibate doesn't automatically turn you into a rapist.

    plus Im sure you can still have sex with a woman if you are attracted to children. It's just one particular urge that can't be satisfied.

    Similar to the way that someone might get off on some sort of fetish but just because he doesn't doesn't do it doesn't mean they don't get get sexual fulfilment.


  • #191
    ALiasEX
    Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭ALiasEX


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    As a human being I need the touch of another human being in order to be fully satisfied, it's natural ..........
    Raping is not natural for me, but then I have never had intimacy with anyone. Fantasy is enough for me.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    floggg wrote: »
    Well how do celibate priests manage then?

    Yes, there are plenty who did commit abuses, but far more who never did. Being celibate doesn't automatically turn you into a rapist.

    No but it must increase the pressure to be aggressive and suffer a lot of stress. We don't know, however, how many were actual abusers. We only know the ones that have been caught - so far.
    Perhaps the power to chose an alternative passion helps suppress the urges. This is part of what needs to be learned though study and not vilification.


  • #193
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,640 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    ALiasEX wrote: »
    What do you base this on?

    Definition of the word speicifies gender. Regardless of whether a person is gay, straight or bisexual, they can still be a pedophile.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #194
    ALiasEX
    Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭ALiasEX


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Definition of the word speicifies gender. Regardless of whether a person is gay, straight or bisexual, they can still be a pedophile.
    Assuming they have a fetish rather than a different orientation, how do you know they outnumber the pedophiles with an exclusive attraction to kids?


  • #195
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    As a human being I need the touch of another human being in order to be fully satisfied, it's natural ..........

    Does this mean that without it being offered by someone able, both legally and morally, that you would resort to rape?


  • #196
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    Didn't see the programme, but I have a problem with these kinds of shows on principle. In my view they run the risk of normalising child abuse, even it unintentionally.


  • #197
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,640 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    ALiasEX wrote: »
    Assuming they have a fetish rather than a different orientation, how do you know they outnumber the pedophiles with an exclusive attraction to kids?

    Think you may be confusing me with another poster - I never made any point about anyone outnumbering anyone else, and I donlt understand who "they" refers to.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #198
    crybaby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 876 ✭✭✭crybaby


    porsche959 wrote: »
    Didn't see the programme, but I have a problem with these kinds of shows on principle. In my view they run the risk of normalising child abuse, even it unintentionally.


    Normalizing child abuse? Please do explain further


  • #199
    Irishcrx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,861 ✭✭✭Irishcrx




  • #200
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Murray007 wrote: »
    Hold on, what do you think a pedophile is, whether active or not, sexual activity with child is either an aspiration or a muted fantasy. Either way do not take the risk with a child. You will be let down they will be destroyed.

    That would be my point entirely. I do not have a one size fits all of what a "pedophile" is. And I do not conflate attraction with action, or desire with intent, as readily as numerous people seem to.

    Rather I see both pedophilia AND intention to be continua along which each person will lie in entirely different places.

    But if you demand a sound byte on what I believe a pedophile to be then I see it as a person who has an undefined level of attraction sexually to children. My definition, in other words, does not include reference to anyone actually acting ON those urges. Just having them.

    And for every one of them that abuses or rapes a child, there are likely NUMEROUS ones that never do, never will and never would. My suspicion is that the number of people actually with such an attraction FAR outweighs the number of them we are aware of by their actually acting on their desires.
    ALiasEX wrote: »
    Raping is not natural for me, but then I have never had intimacy with anyone. Fantasy is enough for me.

    That would be an analogous point I would make on this thread too.

    There are numerous people among us who have a rape fantasy. Either engaging in it, or having it done to them. Men and women. But those desires and fantasies reside in fantasy only. The majority of them do not _actually_ want to rape anyone or _actually_ be raped.

    I think there are a lot of people, perhaps even the majority, who have sexual fantasies they would like to engage in AND sexual fantasies that reside in their brain only for which they have no interest in ever making real.

    I do not think this is limited to sex either. I think we have fantasies in our life that we enjoy engaging in but never want to see made real. There are probably those among us, for example, who have imagined our Boss at work dying a slow and painful and agonizing death. But the majority of those people would not _actually_ like to see real and actual harm of any kind actually befall that person.


  • #201
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    it's worth noting that Kevin Bacon's character (the paedophile) acknowledges that he needs to avoid contact with children as much as possible if he is to have any chance at suppressing his sexual urges.

    Absolutely! And there are people like that in reality too, not just fiction. I think an error people make when conceptualizing Pedophilia. They see it as a one catch all label and they think they know what they mean.

    The reality, as my first post went into so I will not take up space repeating it here, is that there is a vast continuum of both drives towards it, how it presents in the person who has it, and to what degree it is likely to influence their behavior.

    Clearly finding a way to foster a community where people who have this can step forward and say "I have this, what can we do about it?" is going to help us not only deal with this, but develop ways and methodologies to diagnose where on the continuum people lie and to make informed decisions on who simply should be made to avoid all contact with children because they simply can not be trusted in any workable scenario otherwise.
    MadDog76 wrote: »
    It feels odd to be rooting for a paedophile character in a movie ......... but I was rooting for him!!

    That is the power of literature, art and hollywood. It allows us, in ways simply not available to us in the real world, to take on the perspective of the "bad guy" in a way that we simply can not achieve in reality. It is _very_ easy for us as a species to demonize the bad guy and simply represent him as unassailably evil in our mind.

    With our fiction however we can get into the head space of the bad guy and really see things from a perspective that would simply never be available to us in reality. And, as you say above, it can leave you feeling really odd because a dichotomy is created in your head between your normal natural reaction.... that of having a hate all representation of the "bad guy" in our mind.... and that of having that persons perspective available to you.... and your feeling of "oddness" likely comes from the clash between these two representations in your mind.

    I have often said for example, that the most terrifying evil characters in literature and screen are not the wantonly "evil" people like hannibal lector. But the evil people who reach their evil through a series of rational and possibly even well meant steps. And at the end you can see them for the evil person they are.... but you can also see, understand, and relate to every tiny decision they made along the path that got them there.

    And that evil is terrifying because not only is the evil itself terrifying, but you can not imagine yourself what you yourself would have done different at each stage along that persons descent into evil.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement