How society needs to approach paedophilia (Mod warning post #12)

Red_Marauder

midlandsmissus wrote: »

'It's not particularly relevant', do you mean to come across as hardhearted and clinical as you sound?

If you read the posts concerned, it is pretty clear we are talking about analysing the paedophiles or active child abusers - it is one aspect of the entire, wider question of paedophiles and society.
Some people are taking issue with child abusers being assessed medically, scientifically and having pscyhological engagement. All I am saying is that these things are key to our understanding of paedophilia and are a whole seperate issue to victim support altogether.

Of course it's important to hear the effects on the victim. How would we understand what paedophilia is if we didn't understand the effects of the actual act.

read the posts, nobody is arguing anything about victim impacts or having a comprehensive look at child abuse, I've said that's necesary from the beginning.
The point is simply that some people dislike the idea of psychological therapy and similiar clinical attention for abusers or paedophiles.

Everybody knows that listening to victims is important but a lot less people seem to appreciate the importance - or deny the importance - of listening to paedophiles. In my opinion, it's the latter which provides us with more information on how to tackle paedophilia than the former, so the fact that nobody seems to want to listen to paedophiles or active abusers is quite ironic.

alex73

I know a person I trusted for years who was a paedofile. I was not abused by him, but I know of others who were, they complained but I did not believe he was capable, but I have had to accept that he was an abuser of kids for many years. I won't go into too much detail here, I still find it hard to come to terms with it. People with sexual tendancies towards kids are very manipulative and clever. All I would say is that you need to be on your guard and watch your children and the people you leave in their care. I am sure there are people with the tendancy who have not abused and won't abuse, but if you were in that situation who you tell anyone? I think not. Watch your kids, talk to them and be close to them, don't let anyone take their childhood away.

Its not a topic easily discussed, personally if my kid were abused ... well you can imagine I would not go lightly on the person.

Man is not pure instinct, we choose, I am attracted to women, does not mean I will rape them. People with sick attraction to kids does not mean all of them will abuse, they choose or not to follow their passions. Big problem is many abusers were abused as kids.

Watch your kids!!

metrovelvet

Red_Marauder wrote: »

If you read the posts concerned, it is pretty clear we are talking about analysing the paedophiles or active child abusers - it is one aspect of the entire, wider question of paedophiles and society.
Some people are taking issue with child abusers being assessed medically, scientifically and having pscyhological engagement. All I am saying is that these things are key to our understanding of paedophilia and are a whole seperate issue to victim support altogether.

read the posts, nobody is arguing anything about victim impacts or having a comprehensive look at child abuse, I've said that's necesary from the beginning.
The point is simply that some people dislike the idea of psychological therapy and similiar clinical attention for abusers or paedophiles.

Everybody knows that listening to victims is important but a lot less people seem to appreciate the importance - or deny the importance - of listening to paedophiles. In my opinion, it's the latter which provides us with more information on how to tackle paedophilia than the former, so the fact that nobody seems to want to listen to paedophiles or active abusers is quite ironic.

Would you like a forum openned up like the gay/bi forum where they can talk openly with normal people?Is that the conclusion you are trying to lead us to?

hitlersson666

we need to approach them sick cunts with a fucking shotgun! i have been at the other end of this and i tell u that them bastards nearley always get away with it and i never reported it because i knew i would be the one in trouble because thats how socity works!:rolleyes:

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

Would you like a forum openned up like the gay/bi forum where they can talk openly with normal people?Is that the conclusion you are trying to lead us to?

Get real here for a minute.
Do you dismiss the idea of engaging with paedophiles to analyse the genesis of the condition, of engaging with abusers to analyse what turns a paedophile into an abuser? Because I have to say, dismissing that without consideration when it may have a serious influence in our understanding of paedophilia, and preventing child abuse in future - is doing nothing positive at all for future sufferers of child abuse.

I'm really tired of that ridiculous response 'we know what's wrong with them, theyre sick' - well actually, we don't know specifically the nature of what's wrong with them and the only way of doing so is listening to them and examining their clinical and psychiatric histories.
It's not for some puerile interest - this, I believe, could do a huge service for children.

Ickle Magoo

While increasing our understanding of anything is always good - and a better knowledge of what drives a paedophile to abuse could help find a way of removing that drive from convicted abusers, I don't see the link between prevention and understanding. We know more and more about the psychology of violent criminals all the time, does it mean we are able to pre-empt and prevent violent crimes from taking place? No.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

While increasing our understanding of anything is always good - and a better knowledge of what drives a paedophile to abuse could help find a way of removing that drive from convicted abusers, I don't see the link between prevention and understanding.

Well if we keep lumping in abusers with bank robbers and drug dealers, then there is a danger we are missing something.
Child molestation is by all accounts a bizarre and singular sort of crime, and indeed so seemingly rampant in this country, that it merits a serious investigation.
If there are any genetic bases for predisposition, or if there any pattern of psychological traumatic stressors, then I think we need to know about them.

We know more and more about the psychology of violent criminals all the time, does it mean we are able to pre-empt and prevent violent crimes from taking place? No

Throughout the twentieth century our understanding of things like conflict theory, criminology and social deviance has brought about huge changes in how we have looked at crime - from rehabilitation to education and resource funding in under priveleged areas. The issue with regular crime isn't necessarily that we don't know the problems - but that our administration may not always be prepared to hand out the remedy.

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Well if we keep lumping in abusers with bank robbers and drug dealers, then there is a danger we are missing something.

I said violent crime, I lump them in with rapists and some murderers and other people that inflict violence on others because they can't control themselves and in doing so break the law and destroy lives.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Child molestation is by all accounts a bizarre and singular sort of crime, and indeed so seemingly rampant in this country, that it merits a serious investigation.
If there are any genetic bases for predisposition, or if there any pattern of psychological traumatic stressors, then I think we need to know about them.

Sexual abuse of one person by another is quite common, surely sexual abuse of children is just another branch of that family of violent crime.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Throughout the twentieth century our understanding of things like conflict theory, criminology and social deviance has brought about huge changes in how we have looked at crime - from rehabilitation to education and resource funding in under priveleged areas. The issue with regular crime isn't necessarily that we don't know the problems - but that our administration may not always be prepared to hand out the remedy.

Yes, yes, I appreciate all of that but I still don't see how any amount of study re the why's of paedophilia are going to help prevent victims, which seems to be a common theme in your posts for justifying engaging with paedophile abusers.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The debate about engaging with paedophiles, as far as I can see it, relates largely to introducing preventative measures, not reconciliatory measures. It's about child welfare.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

- it's about saving future potential victims by addressing paedophilia at its clincial roots.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Do you not see how that could have huge ramifications for preventing paedophilic behaviours into the future?

Other than some kind of test for paedophilia that can be taken before any abuse can happen and some kind of medical discovery that would stop people finding children sexually attractive then I don't see how any amount of discussion with or study of paedophile abusers is going to prevent victims. So, are you really talking about finding a method of stopping re-offending which doesn't involve a life behind bars? Can you understand that many people are perfectly happy with the "life behind bars" option and see no reason to risk more victims by trying to find a way that convicted paedophile abusers can live in the general community.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I said violent crime, I lump them in with rapists and some murderers and other people that inflict violence on others because they can't control themselves and in doing so break the law and destroy lives.

I think the term "can't control themselves" is inappropriate here for a start. I've never met a lucid individual who couldn't control themselves, and unlike cases like murder in particular, I'm not aware of any child abuse cases with references to temporary insanity, which is how far more murders are explained.

Child abuse, in comparison to murder, tends not to be a once-off. As for rape, I totally agree that child abuse can have many associations with it, it's not the subject of the thread but of course many parallells apply.

The point is that there may be underlying clinical predispositions to child abuse that seems less likely for murder, though if anybody would like to investigate murder in that way, I'm sure it would only be beneficial.

Sexual abuse of one person by another is quite common, surely sexual abuse of children is just another branch of that family of violent crime.

Sure.

Yes, yes, I appreciate all of that but I still don't see how any amount of study re the why's of paedophilia are going to help prevent victims

Hang on, I'm not saying it will prevent victims because the fundamental issue here is that, as things stand, we just don't know enough about paedophilia.
Now if there is a possibility that there may be various patterns in paedophilic behaviour, and that there may be various patterns in explaining why paedophiles go on to become child abusers including psychological stressors, then surely this aids our understanding of the entire issue.
Now in my book, anything that furthers our understanding of paedophilia is going to be a help rather than a hindrance in preventing onset into the future.
For example, if as the result of an investigation it is found that many paedophiles who go on to become child abusers felt unable to communicate their shame to anybody - then maybe it would be sensible to establish a body where such people could use in confidence and without judgement to help them deal with unhealthy sexual feelings before it manifests into an abuse - I'm just giving this as one hypothetical example.

So, are you really talking about finding a method of stopping re-offending which doesn't involve a life behind bars?

I have no problem with a life behind bars for abusers, if you think otherwise I think you have misinterpreted.
I said from the start that engaging with abusers is for the potential protection of children - given our country's affiliation with abuse I think we should be falling over each other to prevent child abuse, not eye-rolling at possibly helpful child-protection measures.

A life behind bars is fine. But it only identifies abusers after they have been detained, tried and sentanced. I would rather we also started to look at serious preventative measures.

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I think the term "can't control themselves" is inappropriate here for a start. I've never met a lucid individual who couldn't control themselves, and unlike cases like murder in particular, I'm not aware of any child abuse cases with references to temporary insanity, which is how far more murders are explained.

Really? Never known someone - who is most certainly lucid - trying to give up cigarettes or a man who loves his wife embarking on an affair? Temporary insanity is hardly a common defence, btw.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Hang on, I'm not saying it will prevent victims because the fundamental issue here is that, as things stand, we just don't know enough about paedophilia.
Now if there is a possibility that there may be various patterns in paedophilic behaviour, and that there may be various patterns in explaining why paedophiles go on to become child abusers including psychological stressors, then surely this aids our understanding of the entire issue.
Now in my book, anything that furthers our understanding of paedophilia is going to be a help rather than a hindrance in preventing onset into the future.

An onset of abuse? How does that work? Or do you mean an onset of paedophilia?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I have no problem with a life behind bars for abusers, if you think otherwise I think you have misinterpreted.
I said from the start that engaging with abusers is for the potential protection of children - given our country's affiliation with abuse I think we should be falling over each other to prevent child abuse, not eye-rolling at possibly helpful child-protection measures.

I don't know who's eye-rolling, I hope you don't mean me? I'm frustrated with a real feeling powerlessness with regards to this subject. I just don't see what dialogue with abusers will do to prevent those paedophiles that are going to, or already abusing, from doing so again. It would give us a greater understanding of the "condition", if that's the correct term - certainly but unless paedophiles start volunteering admissions of their feelings towards children so preventative measures can be taken, then ultimately it's futile.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

A life behind bars is fine. But it only identifies abusers after they have been detained, tried and sentanced. I would rather we also started to look at serious preventative measures.

That's my point though, how do we ever put serious preventative measures in place in sufficient numbers to make a difference? Unless we have some kind of way of distinguishing paedophiles, even & especially those that don't want to be discovered, then what adequate prevention can be taken?

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Really? Never known someone - who is most certainly lucid - trying to give up cigarettes or a man who loves his wife embarking on an affair?

Well yes, but in either case I would certainly argue that either party was, as you say, "out of control". Giving up cigarettes is enormously difficult, so is embarking on infedility - but neither are comparable to sexually abusing a child, which is (if nothing else) legally, entirely objectionable and reprehensible. To my mind, it is not something which is typically 'out of one's control'.

An onset of abuse? How does that work? Or do you mean an onset of paedophilia?

In this case I am referring particularly to the onset of active abuse, but I'm not ruling out the onset of paedophilia under certain circumstances.
As an aside, I appreciate the fact that you seem to make a differentaition.

It would give us a greater understanding of the "condition", if that's the correct term - certainly, but unless paedophiles start volunteering admissions of their feelings towards children so preventative measures can be taken, then ultimately it's futile.

Firstly, I think that if a situation were brought about whereby paedophiles would feel comfotable in coming forward and admitting without stigma the fact that they are subject to these sexual feelings over which they quite possibly have no control, then it would only be beneficial.

I think that would be a huge advancement of where we, as a country, stand o child protection measures.

You concede that engaging with paedophiles would give us "a greater understanding of the condition" - how then can you not support the initiative?
Part of your argument seems to be 'well, even if we understand paedophilia, what can be done?'
Well, what if everybody in the early 20th century had said that about psychiatric conditions in general? One cannot refrain from scientific investigation simply upon the basis that the outcome is unknown - surely the fact that the outcome is unknown is the very basis of scientific investigation to begin with.

We cannot rule out further investigation into condtions with possible psychiatric or genetic undrtones simply because we do not know the outcome. Let us first engage with paedophiles at a psychiatric and clinical level - for the good of child welfare - and then let us be the judges of the outcome.

Ickle Magoo

At no time did I suggest that dialogue should not be entered into, I don't know where you get that from - I don't think anyone has suggested that we just ignore paedophiles and hope for the best. Indeed, I said in my very first post that help and support should be offered to anyone with paedophilic tendencies. I just pointed out that your multiple claims that doing so would automatically increase child safety were dubious - in much the same way that we have a much better idea of what can cause people to kill, or even what defines a psychopath but that knowledge hasn't made a jot of difference to the rates of murder or numbers of mass murderers.

I think a study of paedophiles would be interesting and anything that brings us closer to actually being able to prevent sexual abuse of children can only be a good thing. However, it's important to be realistic as well. There will always be paedophiles that wish to evade detection and those that choose to abuse rather than seek help. I think the study of paedophilia has limited use in mass prevention but could be very useful for dealing with convicted abusers - unfortunately, I think they are just the tip of the ice-berg so study or no, I don't think it will make a significant difference to child safety.

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Well yes, but in either case I would certainly argue that either party was, as you say, "out of control". Giving up cigarettes is enormously difficult, so is embarking on infedility - but neither are comparable to sexually abusing a child, which is (if nothing else) legally, entirely objectionable and reprehensible. To my mind, it is not something which is typically 'out of one's control'.

I said "can't control themselves", you suggested that was inappropriate because lucid people can control themselves, I offer two examples of lucid people who can't control themselves and now you've changed it to "out of control" and are arguing against a phrase you have just made up and attributed to me.

Of course they are different but the draw to have a cigarette or sex with someone you fancy but is not your wife is not a million miles away from being unable to resist any other forbidden longing.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I said "can't control themselves", you suggested that was inappropriate because lucid people can control themselves, I offer two examples of lucid people who can't control themselves and now you've changed it to "out of control" and are arguing against a phrase you have just made up and attributed to me.

Out of control... can't control themselves - neither wording can be attributed to people who crave cigarettes or infidelity. I certainly wouldn't say people who crave nicotine can't control themselves, that's my point. People control themselves in doing so every day of the week.

It has nothing to do with child abuse, anyway. Like smoking I have no reason to think that abusers 'can't control themselves'. Paedophiles - I'm not so sure.

Of course they are different but the draw to have a cigarette or sex with someone you fancy but is not your wife is not a million miles away from being unable to resist any other forbidden longing.

I'm sorry I'm just not willing to engage in any comparison of wanting a cigarette to wanting to abuse a child.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

your multiple claims that doing so would automatically increase child safety

Hang on - can you quote me there?

If you actually read the posts, I said it may be likely to be an aid, in fact I don't see how it couldnt be an aid - to protecting child welfare. I talked about its potential if investigated, not that it would "automatically" increase child safety.

metrovelvet

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Hang on - can you quote me there?

If you actually read the posts, I said it may be likely to be an aid, in fact I don't see how it couldnt be an aid - to protecting child welfare. I talked about its potential if investigated, not that it would "automatically" increase child safety.

Ok then. How would it?

seahorse

Red_Marauder wrote: »

?
I said that victim support and clinical analysis are two different issues - I'm not sure what point you are making or what relevant role a victim would have in collaboration with the investigating clinician or geneticist.

Then I am very glad you are not personally conducting such research.

You continually use the term ‘victim support’ here, but I have not heard anyone else use that term but you. What Miec is obviously saying (and I agree) is that thorough clinical analysis is not possible without thorough victim analysis also.

There is no point trying to understand child molesters without understanding the full impact of child molestation, and this is information you will get from the victims – nowhere else.

It is only by holding a mirror up to the actuality of child sexual abuse that we can gauge exactly what it is a molester has been responsible for, and without understanding exactly what a molester has been responsible for clinical analysis of the subject is not viable or even possible.

You say you would like to see clinical analysis of paedophiles, both active and inactive, and in the case of those who have been active you would consider it feasible, even preferable, to conduct their analysis in the absence of full information as to dynamics of their crimes. This makes no sense to me - none. It is not the approach taken by institutes that work with child molesters either. A key component in therapy in these institutes is bringing the abuser to a full and thorough understanding of the impact of their crimes. In other words, these institutes do not expect abusers to understand themselves without understanding the impact of their abuse on their victims.

To get right down to the nuts and bolts of it, it is crucial to know exactly what happened and how each individual (both perpetrator and abused) responded to it. For example, this sickness (like all sicknesses) exists to different degrees and on differing levels. There are paedophiles in this world sick enough to abuse a child who is terrified into submissive silence and make it their businesses to behave in a manner that is designed to put them in exactly that mental condition, and then, conversely, there are those sick enough to get off sexually on the tormented screams and hysterical weeping of a child and behave in a manner certain to induce that response.

This just one example of the many thousands of converse behaviours of paedophiles and I think it is patently obvious that it is not possible to clinically assess an individual paedophile without having access to a victim impact report. Also, no overview of molester patterns and behaviour would be complete without these crucial details.

Listening to the victims experience here is indispensable in framing an understanding of the dynamics of the child abusers mentality. It is crucial to the understanding of how a sexual violators mind works to appreciate fully the depth of human misery he has found it possible, even pleasurable, to disregard.

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok then. How would it?

I think a more appropriate question is 'how might it?'. Society - particularly irish society - has never really engaged itself with this topic. Yes we have had the Murphy report, we've listened to the harrowing impacts it's had on victims, we've bumped into one another at the shopping centre and said, to use that lame duck Edward VIII term, "Something Must Be Done".

All that I am saying is that one element of what needs to be done, might be to actually listen to and examine clinically and psychologically the lives of those who (a) find themselves with paedophilic tendancies, and (b) those who go on to abuse children.

If we seek to engage paedophiles and abusers and try to understand them, I don't see where the harm is. All I can see is potential benefit - for example (and these are hypothetical exmples) identifying categories of trigger stressors that turn a paedophile into an abuser, identifying paedophiles from early on by de-stigmatising early onset, establishing behavioural patterns or biological markers at neurological or genetic levels - there are too many possibilities for us to dismiss the entire thing out of priggishness or populism.

Red_Marauder

seahorse wrote: »

You continually use the term ‘victim support’ here, but I have not heard anyone else use that term but you. What Miec is obviously saying (and I agree) is that thorough clinical analysis is not possible without thorough victim analysis also.

Okay, since miec has not answered this question, nor metrovelvet who also takes a smiliar stance - then you might.

What value is listening to the victims story to a geneticist or a neurologist or another clinician who is establishing trends or differential markers in the abuser's make-up?
You will appreciate I'm not saying that we need not listen to victims. Of course that would be ridicoulous.
What I am saying is that while a paedophile is undergoing assays or scanning, the neuro-psych team assessing the tests and concluding on behavioural patterns don't have to be in the next room offering counselling to the victim or asking what impact the abuse had on him/ her.

What I am saying is that we need to bring elements to the table from a myriad of different sources - listening to victims, engaging in child protection and monitoring mechanisms, examining case studies and - as is being argued here - engaging with abusers at clinical and psychiatric levels.
Just because an abuser/ paedophile is getting focus from professional teams doesn't mean the victim has to be there every step of the way being part of the same study. It doesn't make any sense. We are talking about establishing trends and markers in abusers and paedophiles as one aspect of the entire goal of improving child welfare.
Listening to victims is another part of that, but the two do aspects not have to be conjoined twins.

It is only by holding a mirror up to the actuality of child sexual abuse that we can gauge exactly what it is a molester has been responsible for

Yes, but that has no objective clinical relevance. If you're a scientist assessing the neurological configuration of the hippocampus in the convicted abuser, you don't need to have the victim's story in black and white beside you.

The wider story is for society to take in and assess, not professionals with expertise in specific clinical or scientific areas for goodness sake.

seahorse

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Okay, since miec has not answered this question, nor metrovelvet who also takes a smiliar stance - then you might.

What value is listening to the victims story to a geneticist or a neurologist or another clinician who is establishing trends or differential markers in the abuser's make-up?

I would have thought that was obvious. For all you or I or anyone else knows, there may well be distinctive correlations between specific behaviour patterns and genetic and/or neurological make-up. A clinician is in no position to counter-reference for the possibility of such corresponding patterns without being armed with the abusive behaviour patterns in all their totality. Trying to establish if such links exist without access to the behavioural trends would be as futile as trying to establish the existence of the links without the necessary genetic or neurological data. The two sets of information need to be measured against each other to establish if there is in fact a link and for that to be done clearly the investigating clinician needs to be in possession of both sets of data.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Yes, but that has no objective clinical relevance.

It may or it may not. We do not know at this point and will not know until the area has been thoroughly researched by professionals in possession of all the relevant facts, and since we do not know with certainty which facts are relevant at this point, we must conclude that any and all of them may be and work towards conclusions by a process of elimination. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise, that is, given that they agreed a genuinely comprehensive study is required here.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

If you're a scientist assessing the neurological configuration of the hippocampus in the convicted abuser, you don't need to have the victim's story in black and white beside you.

I disagree with this utterly, for the reasons outlined in my responses above.

I'd also like to point out that you mentioned in your previous post "offering counselling to the victim" as being implied as part of this process. It's not. It's a separate issue. I don’t know if you are aware that you are actually clouding this debate by continually introducing that as a topic here, but you are, so I’d ask you to please stop clouding the discussion by confusing the difference between analysing the abuse experience and offering its victim therapeutic support.

miec

Everybody knows that listening to victims is important but a lot less people seem to appreciate the importance - or deny the importance - of listening to paedophiles. In my opinion, it's the latter which provides us with more information on how to tackle paedophilia than the former, so the fact that nobody seems to want to listen to paedophiles or active abusers is quite ironic.

No it is not ironic in my opinion. I and many people on this forum have no desire to engage with or discuss with or listen to active abusers.

For example, if as the result of an investigation it is found that many paedophiles who go on to become child abusers felt unable to communicate their shame to anybody - then maybe it would be sensible to establish a body where such people could use in confidence and without judgement to help them deal with unhealthy sexual feelings before it manifests into an abuse - I'm just giving this as one hypothetical example

Has it ever occurred to you that some paedophiles may not experience feelings of shame. However, just to let you know that there is a place and help for people with these tendencies in this country, it is called The Granada Institute. They offer support, counselling and advice for those with paedophillic tendencies. Also a trained psychologist or therapist offers non judgemental therapy to anyone, and this includes those who have desires for children, however, by law (thankfully) if that person admits to sexually abusing a child, the therapist has to report it. So there are outlets already in place for paedophiles who are inactive and even for those who have abused.

If we seek to engage paedophiles and abusers and try to understand them, I don't see where the harm is. All I can see is potential benefit - for example (and these are hypothetical exmples) identifying categories of trigger stressors that turn a paedophile into an abuser, identifying paedophiles from early on by de-stigmatising early onset, establishing behavioural patterns or biological markers at neurological or genetic levels - there are too many possibilities for us to dismiss the entire thing out of priggishness or populism.

I disagree. Why is it important to identify triggers for those that abuse? Is it by chance so the law can be modified and paedophiles then seen as victims of their desires, rather than perpetrators of a sexual crime? If it is shown that something caused the person to abuses then they can get off with it, like so many other crimes now.

You see our reactions as coming from priggishness or populism, that people are feeling a little screamish because they don't want an adult to stick a finger, penis or mouth in their children's private parts, or get that child to carry out sex acts out on them. Last time I checked most people valued their children's safety, that is physical, sexual, spiritual and psychological, and all along we've been prudes, you know we really do need to lighten up Red Marauder. I think this thread and your comments are suspect, you argue in a rational, reasoned manner about this subject and you cannot see what everyone's issue is. We are never going to agree but the fact you put everyone's reaction down to populism or priggishness is way off kilter, extremely so. The way you dismiss and argue away the other side of the equation, makes me wonder whether you suffer from paedophillic tendencies and you want it to be a socially acceptable subject. Fair enough you don't want people to witch hunt those who desire children but you parade your arguement as a disguised lie about the welfare of the child, yet when a real life and blood person outlines their experience you dismiss them. Furthermore, those parents, brothers, sisters, friends of abused children or potentially abused children, who fear this horrible crime, you dismiss as priggish and prudish, oh yes, and of following the crowd. It is called protecting children. People want to lock away, ignore, castrate or kill paedophiles because they know the harm they can cause to their children. The reason active paedophiles have sex with children is because they want to and they choose to, that is how I see it and how I will always see it.

Red_Marauder

seahorse wrote: »

I would have thought that was obvious. For all you or I or anyone else knows, there may well be distinctive correlations between specific behaviour patterns and genetic and/or neurological make-up.

Agreed

A clinician is in no position to counter-reference for the possibility of such corresponding patterns without being armed with the abusive behaviour patterns in all their totality.

Wait a minute, it isn't the role of an investigating clinician in any trial that I can envisage to act as the overseeing power in bringing all of these studies together.
When I say engage with, analyse and examine clinically these abusers, I mean assaying, using differential anatomical and histological markers, and using clinical psychiatric analysis is finding out what makes these paedophiles tick.
Once this has been found out, (ideally, or inasmuch as it can be 'found out') it is then for other professionals to assess these findings in light of finding brought forward from dealing with victims.

A neurologist measuring the histological nature of the posterior pituitary, for example, is a scientist. He is putting forward established scientific facts about his subjects (in this case, convicted abusers)
A clinical psychiatrist team measuring complex post traumatic stress indicators in a subject (this time, lets say inactive paedophiles who volunteer themselves) are simply going to be relaying information on a list of specific, established, objective psychiatric markers for cPTS disorders.

The list goes on and on for geneticists, biochemists, and other investigating individuals.

Now please, explain, in practical terms, why a clinical psychiatrist, geneticist, biochemist, histologist or embryologist would possibly need to understand victim psychology, or engage with victims, when they are simply working in laboratories and clinical wards looking for the presence or absence of specific anatomic markers and the like?

It is not their role/. What you are talking about is far more likely to have a role for forensic psychologists or child psychologists - but not really those who are typically analysising the minds of the abusers.

Nobody is saying that we don't need a comprehensive investigation.

The point is, the need to engage with victims is well established and universally accepted. As you see in miec's post, the need to engage with paedophiles is not. That's all. See below:

miec wrote:

I and many people on this forum have no desire to engage with or discuss with or listen to active abusers.

Why is it important to identify triggers for those that abuse?

Don't you think that if we understand why some paedophiles go on to absue children, and why others refrain, that could possibly help us protect children??

The way you dismiss and argue away the other side of the equation, makes me wonder whether you suffer from paedophillic tendencies and you want it to be a socially acceptable subject.

I absolutely want this to be a subject whose discussion is socially acceptible - you are, however, way out of order on that and I'm simply not replying further to such infantile posts in this thread from you. Well done on loweing the tone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seahorse

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Now please, explain, in practical terms, why a clinical psychiatrist, geneticist, biochemist, histologist or embryologist would possibly need to understand victim psychology, or engage with victims, when they are simply working in laboratories and clinical wards looking for the presence or absence of specific anatomic markers and the like?

I would posit that the most comprehensive study would be a collaborative one with professionals of all these fields, and more besides, working together to establish the existence or non existence of these links and I think that would be best done with all parties being in full possession of the facts. I do not understand why you are so adamant that the fullness of the facts not be revealed to specific professionals? You feel that it is not relevant, (I disagree) but if you are right and it is not relevant, where is the harm as you see it in furnishing these professionals with the details of the abuse experience in its totality?

You have asked why a clinical psychiatrist would need to understand victim psychology. This is not about victim psychology - it is about abuser psychology, gauged through the abuse the abuser has inflicted. As far as the other professions are concerned, it is common knowledge that there is a very great deal still undiscovered in the areas of genetics, neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry, in every field of science, in fact. For this reason I do not accept for one moment that there is evidence (and you haven’t offered any) that the dynamics of the abuse experience are not relevant here. It is quite possible as far as I can see that its relevance may be revealed by way of its introduction.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Nobody is saying that we don't need a comprehensive investigation.

Nobody, that is, except yourself. You feel that all those working towards finding answers here ought to be assigned rigid specific roles that often do not concentrate whatever on the actual crimes committed or the psychology behind those crimes. For all we know there may be chemical reactors in the brain which respond to certain situations and there may be patterns common to groups of abusers which reflect this, but you would be unwilling to concede that these areas ought to be explored. There is nothing comprehensive about the type of research you are suggesting.

Now, I’ve posted three lengthy posts on the subject and made my position clear enough so I don’t think I’ll be posting again. I’ve said enough here and feel I am going in circles. Your position makes no sense to me and it seems clear to me that your deepest concern is with leaving the impact upon the victim out of the equation here; so far outside the equation in fact that you'd be prepared to sacrifice the possibility of valuable new scientific insights in an effort to ignore it.

midlandsmissus

Depersonalisation of victims is classic paedophile behaviour. I'm not referring to anyone in specific in this thread, it's just a general observation.

Red_Marauder

seahorse wrote: »

I would posit that the most comprehensive study would be a collaborative one with professionals of all these fields,

Nobody is arguing that - this has been said from the very beginning. All I'm saying is that in terms of things like genetic tests, it's really all down to the abuser when it is the abuser we are analysing.

For example, say the departments of Medical Histology at UCD and Trinity are engaged in a study of this nature.
Their job is to examine, perhaps, a certain feature of the neurohypophysis of the pituitary gland in deceased convicted abusers chosen from two Irish prisons over a period of seven to ten years.
They perform the investigation, and in time, they report on their findings.
Now, at what point here, do these scientists require the input of victims?

The point here is not that victims are surplus to requirements - nobody suggests that. It's just that these suggestions that victims must be part and parcel of all of such investigations is quite simply excessive.

Victims could be part of a myriad of different studies which could be looked at in light of studies like the above, and we could compare reuslts to establish safe conclusions.
Obviously there are some studies which would require input of both abusers and victims.

But this notion that it is somehow wrong of us to engage with abusers - or wrong of us to always engage in scientific. clinical investigation of abusers without victims to the fore in such studies, is just senseless. Some clinical work could require this depending on the research, but by no means all.

Similiarly, lots of research into abuse victims, their circumstances and their family/ community histories wouldn't necessarily require input from abusers.

if you are right and it is not relevant, where is the harm as you see it in furnishing these professionals with the details of the abuse experience in its totality?

But what is the nature of this information?

If I am a genetics research co-ordinator for UCD and I am hiring technicians to do this research, what am I providing them with in your book? Genetic information on the victim? Come on. These people are educated in genetics or whatever their discipline might be - of course the roles have to be pretty rigid.

Your answers are vague and never really answer, in practical, real terms, what exactly the information passed on to such clinicians and scientists would be, and what the real life basis for this is.

I really think some people just dislike the idea of any engagement with paedophiles without someone standing there reminding everyone how bad abuse is - everybody already knows how horrible abuse is, or think we do, why else would they be trying to get to the bottom of it?

miec

I am going to make a general point here, for those who have desires for children but who do not act upon it and feel sad or ashamed for those feelings and have the desire and motivation to see it is a problem and want to work on it, these people have my sympathy and my respect because they are exercising their choice and will to be a better person and not act on their desire.

This is not extended to those who act upon their desires. I do not know if someone is born desiring children but lets say they are, that they have a genetic predisposition for this and let's say they admit this to a scientist under a case study, so the scientists pinpoint that one of the reasons for paedophila is a genetic dispostion, then what? Do the scientists remove the gene, and what are the implications of that? It reduces our capacity to exercise free will and to make free choices and whilst I have expressed very strong views against those who act upon their desires and have also expressed the desire to not engage with them, I am equally leery of science interfering with someone's gene pool and hence their autonomy.

Furthermore, lets say a study is set up to talk with paedophiles who have acted on their desires, by law, the scientist has to inform the gardai and social services that a person has abused a person if they are under the age of 18, where is the clinical detachment in that? Are these paedophiles who abuse exempt from the law, and in order for a scientific study to be done on this, no one in their right mind is going to submit themselves as a case study if they face jail for their actions and to expect society to allow these people to discuss their actions but not be penalised for it is allowing too much. This is why I and many others argue that you cannot seperate the two, it is an impossibility.

Maybe there is another reason that scientists can ascertain such as triggers and so forth for a person to abuse, so their actions are rendered pre-determined so the scientists or whomoever put together a list of things to look out for in their behaviour and so forth. This also removes automony and personal responsibility for the individual and the paedophile becomes someone we have to pity because they are a victim of circumstances, again that is too much for society to accept.

So analysing why a person abuses children will not alter or change or help children's welfare in any way but it will allow those who want to evade capture and jail sentence to manipulate the law, society and to abscond their responsibility.

People commit bad acts because they want to. It may sound simplistic, it may not sound very theoritical but that is the bottom line and whilst people go running around looking for why's and reasons, it lessens our autonomy for good or bad.

I know I broke a rule when I personalised things on this thread, and I did it in the full knowledge of doing something wrong, I exercised my choice. People who abuse children do so in the full knowledge that they are doing something wrong and because they do not want to control themselves, not because they can't, but because they don't want to.

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Out of control... can't control themselves - neither wording can be attributed to people who crave cigarettes or infidelity. I certainly wouldn't say people who crave nicotine can't control themselves, that's my point. People control themselves in doing so every day of the week.

It has nothing to do with child abuse, anyway. Like smoking I have no reason to think that abusers 'can't control themselves'. Paedophiles - I'm not so sure.
I'm sorry I'm just not willing to engage in any comparison of wanting a cigarette to wanting to abuse a child.

By can't control themselves, I don't mean they literally have a compulsion of such magnitude that they cannot act in any other way, I mean much like the sneaky smoker or cheating husband - there is deliberate choice made. Perhaps won't control themselves is a better way of wording it.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Hang on - can you quote me there?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

..it's about saving future potential victims by addressing paedophilia at its clincial roots.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

If you actually read the posts, I said it may be likely to be an aid, in fact I don't see how it couldnt be an aid - to protecting child welfare. I talked about its potential if investigated, not that it would "automatically" increase child safety.

You seem to be touting dialogue with paedophiles as being the panacea to child abuse, as I've already stated it may help reduce re-offending rates but it is unlikely to have any significant impact on active abusers that have yet to be reprehended - which are the majority. So logic would dictate that dialogue with paedophiles can only ever have a limited use in terms of broader child safety.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

....by de-stigmatising early onset, establishing behavioural patterns or biological markers at neurological or genetic levels - there are too many possibilities for us to dismiss the entire thing out of priggishness or populism.

I think you are doing a great many people a great disservice by assuming their lack of enthusiasm over engaging with and de-stigmatising paedophiles is based in priggishness or populism. Paedophiles can, by their very definition, be dangerous to children and can wilfully engage in deliberately & pre-meditatively ingratiating themselves with a child and/or their family, grooming, spinning a web of secrecy and lies. Paedophiles have the potential and most importantly, the motivation, to do untold harm. There is a very, very good reason why paedophilia is stigmatised and people are wary and sceptical of paedophiles.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

By can't control themselves, I don't mean they literally have a compulsion of such magnitude that they cannot act in any other way, I mean much like the sneaky smoker or cheating husband - there is deliberate choice made. Perhaps won't control themselves is a better way of wording it.

Okay... but that is completely different to someone being unable to control themselves.

For the record, I've never come across anything that's made me think child abusers can't control themselves. I think you may be right that they 'won't' control themselves however.

You seem to be touting dialogue with paedophiles as being the panacea to child abuse

No I am not. I have made it clear from the beginning that I am only looking at engaging in dialogue with paedophiles, and analysing the biology of such individuals, and doing the same with child abusers, as something that has the potential to leave us better informed - and that in turn could help us tackle abuse. Nobody mentioned anything at all about the abolition of child abuse or any panacea - those are your words entirely. I have only ever talked in the context of a potential aid.

as I've already stated it may help reduce re-offending rates but it is unlikely to have any significant impact on active abusers that have yet to be reprehended - which are the majority.

I'm not in favour of ruling out potential solutions to problems before they have been examined.

If any study helps to save even one child or a handful of children from a lifetime marred by abuse, then I would think any researcher would be proud to stand over that.

I have only given a few hypothetical situations where processes of engagement that I'm in favour of researching could have potential benefits

So logic would dictate that dialogue with paedophiles can only ever have a limited use in terms of broader child safety.

There is no single means of tackling child abuse without it's limits. I'm sure you don't feel that means getting rid of them. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

I think you are doing a great many people a great disservice by assuming their lack of enthusiasm over engaging with and de-stigmatising paedophiles is based in priggishness or populism. Paedophiles can, by their very definition, be dangerous to children and can wilfully engage in deliberately & pre-meditatively ingratiating themselves with a child and/or their family, grooming, spinning a web of secrecy and lies. Paedophiles have the potential and most importantly, the motivation, to do untold harm. There is a very, very good reason why paedophilia is stigmatised and people are wary and sceptical of paedophiles.

I'm sorry, what's that possibly got to do with professional engagement with paedophiles? Nobody expects abuse victims to be asked to personally engage with them.

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

No I am not. I have made it clear from the beginning that I am only looking at engaging in dialogue with paedophiles, and analysing the biology of such individuals, and doing the same with child abusers, as something that has the potential to leave us better informed - and that in turn could help us tackle abuse. Nobody mentioned anything at all about the abolition of child abuse or any panacea - those are your words entirely. I have only ever talked in the context of a potential aid.

And then you say exactly the opposite:

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I'm not in favour of ruling out potential solutions to problems before they have been examined.

Either it's a potential aid, or a potential solution. I've already agreed it could be an aid, I absolutely disagree it is a solution, potential or otherwise.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

If any study helps to save even one child or a handful of children from a lifetime marred by abuse, then I would think any researcher would be proud to stand over that.

I have only given a few hypothetical situations where processes of engagement that I'm in favour of researching could have potential benefits

There is no single means of tackling child abuse without it's limits. I'm sure you don't feel that means getting rid of them. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

No, your argument doesn't make sense. You've gone from claiming "society" should "de-stigmatise" and "engage with" paedophiles for the sake of child safety in general, to suggesting that if only one child is saved then dialogue is worthwhile. I agree that anything that improves child safety is worthwhile, I don't know in how many more ways I can say that before you accept it. My point is; I suspect "society", which is what you specifically wanted debate on, has no intention of de-stigmatising or offering mass support and understanding of paedophilia for the sake of saving "one or a handful of children" when doing that could place thousands of others in danger. Society cannot warn children that such people exist & what their MO may be, without automatically stigmatising paedophilia & paedophiles.

For as long as there are paedophiles, abusers who try to evade detection and those deliberately grooming children to secretly fulfil their desires then paedophiles will be stigmatised. I think you should stop looking at society and blaming them for not wanting to understand or support people who fantasise about or actually hurt them/their children.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I'm sorry, what's that possibly got to do with professional engagement with paedophiles? Nobody expects abuse victims to be asked to personally engage with them.

Professional engagement? Read the title of your thread again, you specifically asked for opinions with regards to;

Red_Marauder wrote: »

the issue of how society approaches paedophilia.

and

Red_Marauder wrote: »

How do we as a society approach that situation?

I think professional engagement is a rather obvious approach. Are you suggesting that no-one is currently involved in professional engagement with paedophiles? That there are no studies of paedophiles currently being conducted? I'd be surprised if that were the case.

You asked how society approaches paedophilia, the vast majority of society pray that no child they know ever falls foul of one of the hundreds of thousands of predatory paedophiles that exist among us. It's a real risk, a real fear & no amount of dialogue will noticeably diminish that risk. It's an impossibility to expect people to engage with or de-stigmatise something that the vast majority of society, in almost unparalleled unity, despises.