Paedophiles are not perverts

metrovelvet

Stark wrote:

We are animals. The only real difference between us and the majority of animals is increased intelligence and the ability to override instinct.

On second thought do you find animals having sex with their young outside of the gerbil species?

CiaranC

N8 wrote:

Sorry just read this and realised seamus you are full of sh*t, supposition and conjecture.

His point is succint and well expressed. as opposed to your hysterical kill-em-all nonsense.

Tar.Aldarion

Stark wrote:

We are animals. The only real difference between us and the majority of animals is increased intelligence and the ability to override instinct.

We are animals yes. We are more intelligent but I don't know if we differ in the whole, ability to override instinct. Either all animals can or none can imo. I don't see any significant differences in looking at humans and other animals in this regard, can you?

His point is succint and well expressed. as opposed to your hysterical kill-em-all nonsense.

.

On second thought do you find animals having sex with their young outside of the gerbil species?

We find a lot of things in other animals, like eating their young, having sex with them etc, why?

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

No, that viewpoint is saying exactly that that is impossible, with people not being able to choose whom they find sexually attractive.

But then what does the OP consider to be perverted, if he doesn't consider pedophiles to be perverted.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Are they?

They seem to be ...

hallelujah wrote:

Am I the only person who thinks paedophiles are not perverts? ... I think paedophiles cannot help how they feel.

So who are these people that can help how they feel that the OP would classify as a pervert?

hallelujah wrote:

People are saying that they are different from those born with similar unseemly urges but do not actively act on them under their own volition, whereas some people may be born with the same paedophilic urges(People X) but these people choose to abandon restraint and abuse a child

That doesn't seem to be really what the OP was talking about, but I see your position.

JohnK

metrovelvet wrote:

On second thought do you find animals having sex with their young outside of the gerbil species?

The Bonobo chimps come to mind here. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it, and often involves adults and children, even infants.
...
They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by gender or age

N8

Originally Posted by N8
Sorry just read this and realised seamus you are full of sh*t, supposition and conjecture.

CiaranC wrote:

His point is succint and well expressed. as opposed to your hysterical kill-em-all nonsense.

Sorry CiaranC to disappoint, I am neither hysterical nor advocating a kill them all policy.

seamus

N8 wrote:

Sorry just read this and realised seamus you are full of sh*t, supposition and conjecture.

And your posts are full of factual goodness and subjectivity I see :rolleyes:

Is there any evidence there is a significant majority of paedophiles who do not act upon them as seamus would suggest?

Is there any evidence that a significant majority of paedophiles *do* act upon them?

No, wait, there isn't. We don't even have anything approaching solid figures on how many actual paedophiles there may be. All we have is how many have been caught breaking the law.

It's hysterical draconian ravings like yours which mean that people are too afraid to even broach the subject or discuss it in a rational sense. Anyone who does risks being branded a paedophile themselves and having their lives ruined by idiots.

We need to STUDY this condition. The more it's ignored and suppressed, the harder it will be to stop those who commit the crimes.

I think it's time to resurrect the Witchfinder general.

Nevyn

N8 abusive posting reported to the mods of this forum.

Zombrex

N8 wrote:

Leave their legs on and attach them to pedals of bike working up energy on a generator.

I still think you are missing the point. Such a device would require even more energy input

N8 wrote:

Perhaps not but accurate.

Perhaps what?

N8 wrote:

Are you a professional? Somehow I doubt it.......

I'm not, which is why I don't make up my own definitions. And neither should you.

Tar.Aldarion

Wicknight wrote:

But then what does the OP consider to be perverted, if he doesn't consider pedophiles to be perverted.

Well that's up to him to answer, but I believe he believes being a pedophile does not automatically make you a pervert in the sense most people think of that word(It does in the dictionary sense). I believe he is saying that being born with certain urges is not wrong, what can be wrong is acting on them and hurting another.

So who are these people that can help how they feel that the OP would classify as a pervert?

It's not that there are people that can help how they feel, more the belief that everybody can help how they can act.

That doesn't seem to be really what the OP was talking about, but I see your position.

I think that is what he is talking about from his posts on this thread. He says that he believes a paedophile is not in the wrong for being born with these feelings, but is wrong for acting on them, not showing restraint and hurting another.

N8

Thaedydal wrote:

N8 abusive posting reported to the mods of this forum.

Originally Posted by N8
Sorry just read this and realised seamus you are full of sh*t, supposition and conjecture.

Sorry seamus I apologise it was just you weighed in suggested facts and evidence but turns out it was supposition and conjecture.

The problem is the argument is weighted toward acceptance or tolerance of paedophilia.

On one side there are the paedophiles, active and non active.

In the middle are the do-gooder liberals. Unwilling to do anything but preaching tolerance, understanding and inaction, and so allowing proliferation of this cancer in our society.

On the other side are people with opinions who align themselves with doing something. This does not rule out compassion but is weighted toward the vulnerable and valued in our society, our children.

No one has said there is not a need to study it. It should be studied whilst it is being dealt with.

What has not being suggested is an alternative to my suggestion of how to deal with it other than the fanciful suggestions of letting paedophiles (declared celibate of course!) run around with children.

Tar.Aldarion

Sounds like you want to round people up for thought crimes tbh.

seamus

N8 wrote:

Sorry seamus I apologise it was just you weighed in suggested facts and evidence but turns out it was supposition and conjecture.

Well, I'd disagree with that, but if that's how it appeared to you, then fair enough

The problem is the argument is weighted toward acceptance or tolerance of paedophilia.

My argument is that any viewpoint which isn't instantly weighted towards castration and solitary confinement of paedophiles causes people to lose the run of themselves.

On one side there are the paedophiles, active and non active.

In the middle are the do-gooder liberals. Unwilling to do anything but preaching tolerance, understanding and inaction, and so allowing proliferation of this cancer in our society.

On the other side are people with opinions who align themselves with doing something. This does not rule out compassion but is weighted toward the vulnerable and valued in our society, our children.

Except that it's not that black-and-white. "You're either one of them or one of us", is never a valid statement. Ever.

No one has said there is not a need to study it. It should be studied whilst it is being dealt with.

Well, herein lies the issue. If you don't understand the condition, how can you deal with it effectively? As best I can see, the current laws basically deal with any illegal aspects of paedophile activity. So it's illegal to rape children, to create or distribute child pornography, or otherwise exploit children for sexual purposes.
That seems like sufficient legislation to me for dealing with the morally repugnant activities.

It would be tough to argue that people engaged in the above activities will get away scot free if caught. What people are concerned about is the bogeyman aspect. If someone hasn't been convicted, how do we know what side of the fence they stand on?

This is the line that the media have been pushing for years - that everybody is a potential paedophile, unless they've been convicted, in which case it's confirmed. This is the line that has people afraid to try and figure this crap out. What if paedophilia can be treated? What if it can be cured? We don't know the answers to these questions because the media lobby, backed up by the hysterical masses, don't want them. Paedophiles sell papers. Missing kids make for great news stories, and books and sensationalist reporting.

Imagine if someone who did feel these urges didn't feel like they would be lynched if they came out? If they thought they could go to a psychologist or a doctor without fear of being shopped, having their house stripped by cops, and having their local reputation ruined. If they though that somebody could help them understand and maintain control over what they feel.
Do you think the world would be a safer place for children, or a more dangerous place?

LadyJ

seamus wrote:

Well, herein lies the issue. If you don't understand the condition, how can you deal with it effectively? As best I can see, the current laws basically deal with any illegal aspects of paedophile activity. So it's illegal to rape children, to create or distribute child pornography, or otherwise exploit children for sexual purposes.
That seems like sufficient legislation to me for dealing with the morally repugnant activities.

It would be tough to argue that people engaged in the above activities will get away scot free if caught. What people are concerned about is the bogeyman aspect. If someone hasn't been convicted, how do we know what side of the fence they stand on?

This is the line that the media have been pushing for years - that everybody is a potential paedophile, unless they've been convicted, in which case it's confirmed. This is the line that has people afraid to try and figure this crap out. What if paedophilia can be treated? What if it can be cured? We don't know the answers to these questions because the media lobby, backed up by the hysterical masses, don't want them. Paedophiles sell papers. Missing kids make for great news stories, and books and sensationalist reporting.

Imagine if someone who did feel these urges didn't feel like they would be lynched if they came out? If they thought they could go to a psychologist or a doctor without fear of being shopped, having their house stripped by cops, and having their local reputation ruined. If they though that somebody could help them understand and maintain control over what they feel.
Do you think the world would be a safer place for children, or a more dangerous place?

Seamus, I completely agree and this is what I've been trying to say myself but obviously not very articulately! I think this would make a huge difference and benefit society greatly. At least then we would have further understanding of the minds of paedophiles and thus be able to eventually control the issue in a better way.

metrovelvet

seamus wrote:

I
Imagine if someone who did feel these urges didn't feel like they would be lynched if they came out? If they thought they could go to a psychologist or a doctor without fear of being shopped, having their house stripped by cops, and having their local reputation ruined. If they though that somebody could help them understand and maintain control over what they feel.
Do you think the world would be a safer place for children, or a more dangerous place?

A collective political platform [like NAMBLA] which would demand equal rights and for Megan's Law to be repealed.

They are not going to go to a psychologist or rehab because to do that would be to acknowlege that you are not "normal" and that you have to conform to a hetero adult standard.

It would be a far more dangerous place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Pedophile_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile_activism
http://www.nambla.org/

fits

metrovelvet wrote:

It would be a far more dangerous place.

I disagree...

there must quite simply a huge proportion of the population who feel these urges... but there is so much taboo attached, it is all swept under the carpet....

I agree that research on paedophilia would be useful and worthy, although a stronger person than I would have to do it.

seamus

metrovelvet wrote:

A collective political platform [like NAMBLA] which would demand equal rights and for Megan's Law to be repealed.

You can't tell me that you actually believe that tighter suppression of these people will make these organisations go away?

Whatever about "equal rights", the fundamental issue of the child's rights will never be overridden, so you'll never see them being allowed to have sex with children. Period.
I've not read those articles, or what it is those organisations are looking for (and there's no way in hell I'm opening it in work), so I can't really comment on them till I do.

There is however no worse thing for society than when it refuses to ask questions purely because it's afraid of the answers it may receive.

The Corinthian

N8 wrote:

In the middle are the do-gooder liberals. Unwilling to do anything but preaching tolerance, understanding and inaction, and so allowing proliferation of this cancer in our society.

On the other side are people with opinions who align themselves with doing something. This does not rule out compassion but is weighted toward the vulnerable and valued in our society, our children.

Well, objectively that's not what you're really doing.

Earlier, when you suggested a number of punishments, including torture and execution, for paedophiles, I had to ask what would you do with those guilty of genocide? You've pretty much hit the limit in punishments already, after all.

Personally I believe that child abuse is a heinous crime, however I believe that genocide is, hands down, a greater one. Seriously - to think that murdering entire populations of men, women and, ironically, children is a lesser crime, you'd really have to be a nut.

So from what I can see, either you've not thought it through, but will act anyway, or you've decided that child abuse is the most heinous crime in existence (again not really thinking things through), thus proposing the aforementioned punishments. Either way you're not really making a lot of sense.

Certainly, talking and doing nothing is not going to solve anything, but one thing is certain, neither is not having a clue what the problem is and trying to solve. This is the basis of rule by the mob - emotive, mindless and ultimately both self-destructive and pointless. That is all you're offering by way of a solution.

Logic would dictate that to solve a problem you should at least have a basic understanding of it that can be applied to that solution. You and Metrovelvet appear to have - at best - have some understanding, but it's so warped by emotion that neither of you can offer anything other than a violent 'gut reaction'.

metrovelvet

seamus wrote:

You can't tell me that you actually believe that tighter oppression of these people will make these organisations go away?

Whatever about "equal rights", the fundamental issue of the child's rights will never be overridden, so you'll never see them being allowed to have sex with children. Period.
I've not read those articles, or what it is those organisations are looking for (and there's no way in hell I'm opening it in work), so I can't really comment on them till I do.

There is however no worse thing for society than when it refuses to ask questions purely because it's afraid of the answers it may receive.

Oh now they are "oppressed"? Oh please.

seamus

No, actually I didn't mean that. I checked dictionary.com and the accepted definition of oppression is "to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power:". Which is definitely not what I meant. I was looking for "suppress" or "repress"

I've edited my post.

The Corinthian

seamus wrote:

Whatever about "equal rights", the fundamental issue of the child's rights will never be overridden, so you'll never see them being allowed to have sex with children. Period.

It won't be overridden, but it may be redefined. Remember, sex with children is illegal only because they are not considered to be capable of consent - so you can change the parameters for what constitutes consent and/or at what age. Of course, one could suggest that public opinion would never accept such a move, but then again homosexuality was just as taboo in the West not so long ago and so we can see that taboos can be broken with correct and sufficient effort.

One potential scenario would be the law, and related attitudes, changing with regard to children having sex with other children - which is far more easy to sell than sex with adults. Once ingrained as acceptable the move to sex with non-children becomes far easier.

So, I would disagree with you on that point Seamus.

eth0_

nacho libre wrote:

It is widely accepted among psychologists treatment programs don't work. so, to clarify while i sympathise with anyone who has these urges if you act on them you reap what you sow in my view.

As a student of psychology I'd be interested to know how paedophiles are treated. I wonder if it's along the same lines as the therapy that aimed to turn homosexuals straight. If that's the case...no wonder it fails.

I have to say I am shocked at some of the replies on this thread. It's scary how many people are taken in by screaming tabloid headlines.

nacho libre

eth0_ wrote:

As a student of psychology I'd be interested to know how paedophiles are treated. I wonder if it's along the same lines as the therapy that aimed to turn homosexuals straight. If that's the case...no wonder it fails.

I have to say I am shocked at some of the replies on this thread. It's scary how many people are taken in by screaming tabloid headlines.

That is precisely my point eth0... paedophiles can't be 'treated' as this implies paedophilia is a disease to be treated when clearly it is not. Naturally the general public and Humanistic psychologists would be reluctance to accept this.
However, while there is nothing wrong with engaging in homosexual acts there is clearly something wrong with acting on paedophilic urges. None of the things that make homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality apply to paedophilia.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote:

One potential scenario would be the law, and related attitudes, changing with regard to children having sex with other children - which is far more easy to sell than sex with adults. Once ingrained as acceptable the move to sex with non-children becomes far easier.
.

.... while coincidentallly lowering the age of consent little by little and there you have it ... one day it's there as Nambla, Freespirits and the Childhood Sensuality Circle would like.

Honestly where does it end? Will it eventually be acceptible to impregnant a ten year old.

http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/research321.html
"It is best when beginning sex with a kid to do it as part of a game. Sometimes the kid will make the first move, sometimes the adult. Sometimes the adult can create a situation where a kid can ask for sex or start sex if they want. Curiosity is a big factor, exploring somebody and having them explore you is another good way to start. This can be a kind of show and tell. Just about anything that adults can do together an adult and a kid can do together. It's best to go slowly the first time - and its more exciting that way too - but of course you have to be sensitive to size differences."

This excerpt is from a pamphlet called, "How To Have Sex With Kids," written by David Sonenschein. It is an example of a dangerous philosophy that thousands of people in North America subscribe to. They believe that the laws prohibiting sexual relations between children and adults should be done away with.


As a student of psychology I'd be interested to know how paedophiles are treated. I wonder if it's along the same lines as the therapy that aimed to turn homosexuals straight. If that's the case...no wonder it fails.

As far as I understand they cant be treated because its not a "disease." Its a sexual preference, or fetish and since when are those treatable?

Informative article with further links at bottom:
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/psy/psylect09.htm

N8

eth0_ wrote:

As a student of psychology I'd be interested to know how paedophiles are treated. I wonder if it's along the same lines as the therapy that aimed to turn homosexuals straight. If that's the case...no wonder it fails.

Sorry am I right here?

Presently there is no treatment for paedophilic tendencies i.e. the urge to rape, torture and abuse children?

Wasn’t the whole case toward tolerance based upon the premises of treatment, containment and chastity (yes you heard the last one correctly… this was really suggested as was allowing these paedophiles be tempted to rape, torture and abuse children by allowing children be near them).

This was actually suggested and it appeared serious.

Yes but what should we do in the meantime?

The time taken for boffins to figure out whether a) paedophilia is a treatable and removable from the psyche and b) actually being able to do so? What do we do with those that a) are not treatable and b) those who cross the lien described and venture into either a) engaging with pornography cataloguing the abuse, torture rape and murder of children or b) engage in the latter activities themselves ie abuse, rape, torture and murder of children?


seamus you made a very good point and one I thought over for quite some time then I realised it was intellectual masturbation whilst children were open to attack in our very own communities. People like yourself would have these criminal predatory paedophiles living amongst us. You have offered no solution with dealing with this problem in the meantime.


The Corinthian I agree my suggestions may not seem very compassionate toward paedophiles. Sorry I was thinking of the victims. Perhaps you would too.

Genocide good point….. do you agree with the Irish government involvement in Iraq, its donations to the one child policy in China, its involvement with a UN that allowed Rwanda to unfold despite all warnings?

Genocide is horror itself… I never said nor suggested “that murdering entire populations of men, women and, ironically, children (was) a lesser crime” I just didn’t respond since I though it out of context for what we were discussing.

The Corinthian wrote:

Logic would dictate that to solve a problem you should at least have a basic understanding of it that can be applied to that solution. You and Metrovelvet appear to have - at best - have some understanding, but it's so warped by emotion that neither of you can offer anything other than a violent 'gut reaction'.

Mine is neither a gut reaction, emotional nor violent.

Execution and torture does not necessarily have to be violent or gratifying. They are efficient and effective but in truth this is an issue probably best left for another fuller discussion.

In general criminal predatory paedophiles are repeat offenders doing do with increasing severity. There are exceptions to the rule of course self loathing individuals who need crave help and counselling. They also require and want containment.

There has also been the suggestion that homosexuality and paedophilia are mutually exclusive they are not. It is a fact, the rate of homosexual attraction is many many times higher among paedophiles (1). There is also a much higher rate of homosexuality amongst childsex abuse victims than amongst those not abused. It may not be politically correct nor convenient to to state such but it is fact.

Nambla, Freespirits and the Childhood Sensuality Circle – who works with these people? The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) for one.

Do any of you realise that even Amazon carries NAMBLA material on its website?


How about a play? Incestuous pedophilia, the musical.



Tolerance is not an option. Next thing we’ll be talking about equal rights. We have only to look to the likes of Denmark, a tolerant European country and the openness of The Danish Paedophile Association, who espoused ‘'Voluntary sexual relations between children and adults do not cause any psychological harm other than the problems associated with discovery and intervention,’ - an organisation who was protected under the Danish constitutional right to free assembly. Its website remains active.

Irish Paedophile Association anyone?


I couldn't be bothered to talk about the issue any more because we are talking around in circles. In my opinion we're not trying anywhere enough in this country to prevent or punish the sexual abuse, rape, torture and murder of children. There simply is not enough deterrence in place to daunt the earliest activities of such perversions of society and we are being held back from protecting our children by do-gooders preaching tolerance yet offering no effective mechanisms of dealing with such an obvious and destructive problem in our society.

Cheers


(1) Ray Blanchard, Howard E. Barbaree, Anthony F. Bogaert, Robert Dickey, Philip Klassen, Michael E. Kuban and Kenneth J. Zucker, "Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles," Archives of Sexual Behavior 29:5 [2000] 463-78.

CiaranC

N8 wrote:

Execution and torture does not necessarily have to be violent

You have some pretty bizarre ideas N8. Care to elaborate this point?

Are you saying that the execution and torture you advocated earlier in the thread (severing limbs, forced labour, draining fluids from open wounds, death by hanging etc.) is somehow not violent in your mind?

This sounds suspiciously like the kind of warped reasoning paedphiles use to justify child rape.

seamus

N8 wrote:

What do we do with those that a) are not treatable and b) those who cross the lien described and venture into either a) engaging with pornography cataloguing the abuse, torture rape and murder of children or b) engage in the latter activities themselves ie abuse, rape, torture and murder of children?

The same as we do now. When they break the law, we jail them and then register/tag them when they are released.

In the "tagging" regard, I'm aware that this country is quite poor on it, and there should be more of an international effort to keep these people tracked between countries.
I would in fact endorse "tagging" for all people convicted of criminal offences, but that a whole other discussion

seamus you made a very good point and one I thought over for quite some time then I realised it was intellectual masturbation whilst children were open to attack in our very own communities. People like yourself would have these criminal predatory paedophiles living amongst us. You have offered no solution with dealing with this problem in the meantime.

I'm not sure which point you're talking about, but if you're talking about the "Man at the window" example, you'll need to justify what makes you think said person is a "criminal predator". They haven't broken any law, nor acted in a predatory manner. In fact they haven't given any good reason for you to believe they pose a danger to children.
With all due respect, you haven't offered any solution either. All you've proposed is that we torture and execute those we've already caught. We know execution isn't a deterrent to crime, so I don't know what makes you think torture is.

The problem that I'm identifying here the fact that all we're doing right now is fire-fighting - punishing those after the fact. We need to find a way to stop the fires happening, to stop the law from being broken in the first place.

Do any of you realise that even Amazon carries NAMBLA material on its

How about a play? Incestuous pedophilia,

God bless free speech. This is where it gets horrible. As I've said, I've yet to read any of their sites, but the price of having said freedom means that people are going to say things we don't want to hear. These groups have the right to say these things (within the law of course), and we have the right to ignore them. Giving them the time of day by being disgusted only strengthens their resolve. Nothing is more damaging to any lobby group than being ignored. The media give them the time of day because they sell. Again, more media driven hysteria - "Look at these guys, look at what they're trying to do, show your disgust world!". If the media ignored them, they wouldn't exist in any meaningful form.

Tolerance is not an option. Next thing we’ll be talking about equal rights.

I concede Corinthian's point on this matter.

metrovelvet

seamus wrote:

The same as we do now. When they break the law, we jail them and then register/tag them when they are released.

In the "tagging" regard, I'm aware that this country is quite poor on it, and there should be more of an international effort to keep these people tracked between countries.

.

Why should they get released? You trust your government to do this, the same one that allowed the dept of ed and the chruch to continuously rape children?

I cant believe the "tolerance" expressed on this thread.

nacho libre

"seamus you made a very good point and one I thought over for quite some time then I realised it was intellectual masturbation whilst children were open to attack in our very own communities. People like yourself would have these criminal predatory paedophiles living amongst us. You have offered no solution with dealing with this problem in the meantime."

They already live amongst us. In fact they could be closer to you than you realize. I want to ask you if you had a friend or family member who you discovered is a paedophile and acted on their thoughts. Would the solutions you advocated in this thread be the same towards them?

seamus

metrovelvet wrote:

Why should they get released? You trust your government to do this, the same one that allowed the dept of ed and the chruch to continuously rape children?

More media hysteria. Wahey!
If we're not happy with the way things are being done, we can change that. It's called democracy.
Your charges above come from a very different time. From a time where even suggesting that teachers or clergymen were wrongdoers would have you run out of town.
You don't seriously believe that today's Government would allow the same abuses to go on?

Now, as for the sentence, well why shouldn't they get released? This is back to the punishment thing. If you can murder someone and get out in 15 years, then is child rape more horrendous? If you're going to start jailing people permanently, then you've got a whole pile of other problems on your hands. Because there are more crimes which can be considered "worse" than child rape (if you were cold enough to create a scale by which crimes can be measured). This is similar to what the Corinthian was saying. If child rape is to get you life in jail without parole, then what would you do with serial killers? What would you do with someone who committed genocide?