Scholar Calls Pedophilia 'An Unchangeable Sexual Orientation' that Should Be Accepted

seamus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think your possibly overestimating peoples compassion - they may well applaud you but you can be damn sure they'd then distance themselves.

There's no way I'm spending my time with someone I know is struggling to not stab me.

Sure - fair play to you for seeking help, but it's also very likely that we are done now buddy!

Fair point

But still - sympathetic. I'm going to avoid provoking you, but I can empathise that you're struggling, and if I can help, let me know.

You fancy kids? I'm going to keep my children away from you, and if I see you crossing the road, I may not slow down.



Ultimately both are people struggling with something that isn't their fault, but one person will be hated for it, the other will be treated with compassion. So it's understandable that the former is never going to stick their hand up and go, "Yeah, that's me".

Shenshen

Widdershins wrote: »

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.


I agree with the poster a few posts above and I think there are issues around socially enforced acceptance of things that run counter to instinct, especially for children and women. ''Acceptance without exception'' is a really problematic motto used by the UK charity Stonewall.

Because if you advertised that a particular group was to meet at a certain time in a certain place - what do you think would happen?
The concerned public would be highly likely to show up and physically express their feelings towards these people. If I was in that situation, I would not feel safe in any way attending something as public as this.

In order for people with such an orientation to feel in a position to seek help, that stigma needs to be addressed first.

AllForIt

Widdershins wrote: »

They have group therapy for offenders, why not advertise that and try to get them to attend and deal with their compulsions before they might act, in a similar way to, and I'm sorry , I know this is not an ideal example, Alcoholics Anonymous is advertised.

https://dublingazette.com/news/south-dublin-news/sallynoggin-residents-celebrate-after-alleged-sex-offender-clinic-booted-out/

The above is what 'the community' think of such therapy.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Because our current MO is to wait until they abuse kids and then act and for the life of me, I can not understand how people find THIS acceptable.

Our current MO is certainly not to wait until anyone abuses a child, but rather preventing children from being abused. We commit people to institutions who present a danger to themselves or others and that’s where they receive help in coping with their condition. People don’t wait until someone abuses a child if they are aware there is the potential risk of anyone doing so.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The other problem with therapy is that if any crimes are disclosed, the counsellor is legally required to report them to the police, which automatically creates a barrier to getting help.

That’s not a problem with therapy, it’s a problem with the person who commits a crime, and covering it up is doubling down on the harm that is done. It’s exactly why there is and absolutely should be mandatory reporting when children are at risk. It’s not mandatory reporting of someone who has committed a crime, it’s mandatory reporting of any potential risk to children. Mandatory reporting is something which many organisations have fought against for their own gain, and something which I would fully support them being forced by law to do, as opposed to being aware that children are in danger and choosing not to do anything about it to protect either the individual, or themselves.

Shenshen wrote: »

In order for people with such an orientation to feel in a position to seek help, that stigma needs to be addressed first.

The stigma that exists is due to the potential harm that may be caused to children. It’s impossible to destigmatise harming children, and I wouldn’t want to. People don’t seek help if they feel there isn’t any reason for them to seek help which is generally the attitude of people who refer to their condition as an orientation which should be accepted. Even if you wanted to frame their condition as an orientation (which Is a paradigm I do not accept), then any form of therapy to address their condition would be analogous to gay conversion therapy, and such therapies are generally regarded as ineffective and arguably cause individuals more harm than any benefits they claim are provided by such attempts to address an orientation which in and of itself does not cause people to harm other people, let alone allow them to imagine that harming other people should be acceptable and accepted by society.

Widdershins

Is it a fact that there's no more of a compulsion in them, than there is in an average sex-drive person of a normal sexual orientation?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Our current MO is certainly not to wait until anyone abuses a child, but rather preventing children from being abused. We commit people to institutions who present a danger to themselves or others and that’s where they receive help in coping with their condition. People don’t wait until someone abuses a child if they are aware there is the potential risk of anyone doing so.





That’s not a problem with therapy, it’s a problem with the person who commits a crime, and covering it up is doubling down on the harm that is done. It’s exactly why there is and absolutely should be mandatory reporting when children are at risk. It’s not mandatory reporting of someone who has committed a crime, it’s mandatory reporting of any potential risk to children. Mandatory reporting is something which many organisations have fought against for their own gain, and something which I would fully support them being forced by law to do, as opposed to being aware that children are in danger and choosing not to do anything about it to protect either the individual, or themselves.





The stigma that exists is due to the potential harm that may be caused to children. It’s impossible to destigmatise harming children, and I wouldn’t want to. People don’t seek help if they feel there isn’t any reason for them to seek help which is generally the attitude of people who refer to their condition as an orientation which should be accepted. Even if you wanted to frame their condition as an orientation (which Is a paradigm I do not accept), then any form of therapy to address their condition would be analogous to gay conversion therapy, and such therapies are generally regarded as ineffective and arguably cause individuals more harm than any benefits they claim are provided by such attempts to address an orientation which in and of itself does not cause people to harm other people, let alone allow them to imagine that harming other people should be acceptable and accepted by society.

First point, you're contradicting yourself: you want to 'commit people to institutions' - but how in the hell do you know who to commit...? The only way you know is if a crime is committed (my point) or the pedophile comes forward (highly unlikely). So we return to square one.

The second point, I see your point. But again, if someone is abusing and does NOT seek help or is persuaded not to seek help, the abuse will still continue.

wexie

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

First point, you're contradicting yourself: you want to 'commit people to institutions' - but how in the hell do you know who to commit...? The only way you know is if a crime is committed (my point) or the pedophile comes forward (highly unlikely). So we return to square one.

And, while I'm not entirely sure how things work here, I'd imagine it would be next to (if not completely) impossible to get into these institutions voluntarily without having committed a crime, even if one wanted to be committed.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

First point, you're contradicting yourself: you want to 'commit people to institutions' - but how in the hell do you know who to commit...? The only way you know is if a crime is committed (my point) or the pedophile comes forward (highly unlikely). So we return to square one.

I think PB you might be unintentionally misinterpreting what I said. In Ireland, currently, under the mental health act, people who present as a danger to themselves or others can be committed to institutions where they will receive rehabilitative treatment. How to determine who to commit is quite easy - they present as either a danger to themselves or to other people.

They don’t have to have committed any crime. Having thoughts of causing harm to themselves, or to other people is not a crime in and of itself. It’s when due to their condition, those thoughts can be harmful to the individual, and can render the individual in such a position that they not only present as a danger to themselves, but they present a danger to other people.

@wexie People may also commit themselves voluntarily, but the only people who tend to commit themselves voluntarily are people who acknowledge that their condition presents as either a danger to themselves or to other people. The fact that there is a shortage of State facilities is a funding issue, and private treatment can present an affordability issue that the individual must bear, not the State.

The second point, I see your point. But again, if someone is abusing and does NOT seek help or is persuaded not to seek help, the abuse will still continue.

Yes, it will, obviously, which is why charging society with responsibility for individuals attitudes and behaviours towards others is not only misguided, but it’s ineffective. Arguing that society should accept paedophilia or anyone who would cause harm to a child, if they want to prevent children from being subjected to sexual abuse, is literally holding society to ransom. We don’t allow any group in society to hold the rest of society to ransom.

We hold individuals responsible for their behaviours and attitudes towards others, as we should, rather than allowing them to suggest that if we do not accept their behaviours and attitudes, they will continue to exhibit those behaviours and attitudes to the detriment of the most vulnerable members of society who are in no position to be able to protect themselves from those adults, without adult intervention.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think PB you might be unintentionally misinterpreting what I said. In Ireland, currently, under the mental health act, people who present as a danger to themselves or others can be committed to institutions where they will receive rehabilitative treatment. How to determine who to commit is quite easy - they present as either a danger to themselves or to other people.

They don’t have to have committed any crime. Having thoughts of causing harm to themselves, or to other people is not a crime in and of itself. It’s when due to their condition, those thoughts can be harmful to the individual, and can render the individual in such a position that they not only present as a danger to themselves, but they present a danger to other people.

.... except that's not happening. And part of the problem is fear of insolation and ostracisation. Part of the problem is also that a lot of pedophiles don't see themselves as dangerous because they don't feel under pressure to act and probably think they're safe around kids. Remember: Tim Allen raised three kids before he was outed, and look how that turned out.

The vast majority of people who are known to be pedophiles are known to be so for the sole reason they got caught abusing. That's not going to change under the self-commitment theory. Or if it is, please tell me how.

We hold individuals responsible for their behaviours and attitudes towards others, as we should, rather than allowing them to suggest that if we do not accept their behaviours and attitudes, they will continue to exhibit those behaviours and attitudes to the detriment of the most vulnerable members of society who are in no position to be able to protect themselves from those adults, without adult intervention.

Not sure I follow: you want to hold them responsible for an act before they carry out an act...? How do you know they'll commit an act?

How many pedophiles do you think go through entire lifetimes without every abusing, or without ever getting caught abusing?

One eyed Jack

Widdershins wrote: »

Is it a fact that there's no more of a compulsion in them, than there is in an average sex-drive person of a normal sexual orientation?

That’s about the sum of it really. In that sense they’re no different to anyone else in terms of their sex drive or their compulsion to act on their thoughts. There have been studies that people with paedophilia have lower impulse control and lower capacity for empathy than the general population, but the major criticism of those studies are selection bias, correlation as opposed to causation, and small numbers. Lower impulse control and lower capacity for empathy are not in and of themselves inherently harmful, but in individuals with conditions such as paedophilia, they can present as a danger to themselves or others.

Same thing with having either a high, low or no sex drive whatsoever - in and of itself it’s not harmful to anyone, just ask anyone who is asexual or aromatic (or both), they lead perfectly normal lives. People who refer to themselves as “non-offending paedophiles” or “virtuous paedophiles”, may well be asexual as well as being attracted to children. They may be homosexual, asexual paedophiles, bisexual asexual paedophiles, or heterosexual asexual paedophiles. The fact is they’re still paedophiles, they still present as a danger to children, like any other harm we strive to protect children from and prevent them from being exposed to anything which may cause them harm. That includes people who would attempt to hold society to ransom if their behaviours and attitudes aren’t accepted.

I remember last year there was a similar thread about child sex dolls and it was argued that they should be legalised as they may prevent paedophiles from exhibiting the effects of their condition and causing harm to children. The evidence again that this methodology is effective is based upon selection bias and small numbers. The reality however is quite different -

Arrest over distribution of 'child sex dolls' as gardaí raid 32 premises

Rather than reducing their behaviour as it had been argued, the reality is that the existence of such child sex dolls not only enables, but exacerbates their attitudes and behaviours, and in their own communities online where they are accepted and accommodated, there has been a rise in incidents and extremes of child sexual exploitation, as opposed to any argument that it would allieviate or decrease such behaviours and attitudes -

Report shows 40% rise in online child abuse

In the most crude terms, it would be analogous to expecting a person who has a compulsion to commit rape to be able to satisfy themselves with masturbation. We wouldn’t accept any argument that suggests society should be more accepting of people who have a compulsion to commit rape in the hope that they wouldn’t commit rape. If it were ever acceptable to commit rape, then people would continue to commit rape and more visibly so, causing harm to other people who have an objection to being used as sex objects to sate anyone else’s maladjusted attitudes and behaviours. For people who regard children as sex objects, that kind of thinking should never be deemed socially acceptable.

Fann Linn

2 week old baby raped in the north. There should be no mercy shown to paedophiles.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s about the sum of it really. In that sense they’re no different to anyone else in terms of their sex drive or their compulsion to act on their thoughts. There have been studies that people with paedophilia have lower impulse control and lower capacity for empathy than the general population, but the major criticism of those studies are selection bias, correlation as opposed to causation, and small numbers. Lower impulse control and lower capacity for empathy are not in and of themselves inherently harmful, but in individuals with conditions such as paedophilia, they can present as a danger to themselves or others.

Any such study would be blatanatly (and obviously!) flawed on the basis that they could only conisder pedophiles who have offended, so therefore obviously have low impulse control and empathy levels!

How many pedophiles are they that are totally in control of themselves and very empathetic towards other people and have never had a problem? It could be 1%, it could be 99%,

Same thing with having either a high, low or no sex drive whatsoever - in and of itself it’s not harmful to anyone, just ask anyone who is asexual or aromatic (or both), they lead perfectly normal lives. People who refer to themselves as “non-offending paedophiles” or “virtuous paedophiles”, may well be asexual as well as being attracted to children. They may be homosexual, asexual paedophiles, bisexual asexual paedophiles, or heterosexual asexual paedophiles. The fact is they’re still paedophiles, they still present as a danger to children, like any other harm we strive to protect children from and prevent them from being exposed to anything which may cause them harm. That includes people who would attempt to hold society to ransom if their behaviours and attitudes aren’t accepted.

Again - how to you know this when you can't include non-abusing pedohiles for consideration?

I remember last year there was a similar thread about child sex dolls and it was argued that they should be legalised as they may prevent paedophiles from exhibiting the effects of their condition and causing harm to children. The evidence again that this methodology is effective is based upon selection bias and small numbers. The reality however is quite different -

Arrest over distribution of 'child sex dolls' as gardaí raid 32 premises

Rather than reducing their behaviour as it had been argued, the reality is that the existence of such child sex dolls not only enables, but exacerbates their attitudes and behaviours, and in their own communities online where they are accepted and accommodated, there has been a rise in incidents and extremes of child sexual exploitation, as opposed to any argument that it would allieviate or decrease such behaviours and attitudes -

Report shows 40% rise in online child abuse

Would agree with most of what you say here.

In the most crude terms, it would be analogous to expecting a person who has a compulsion to commit rape to be able to satisfy themselves with masturbation. We wouldn’t accept any argument that suggests society should be more accepting of people who have a compulsion to commit rape in the hope that they wouldn’t commit rape. If it were ever acceptable to commit rape, then people would continue to commit rape and more visibly so, causing harm to other people who have an objection to being used as sex objects to sate anyone else’s maladjusted attitudes and behaviours. For people who regard children as sex objects, that kind of thinking should never be deemed socially acceptable.

There are plenty of celibate people out there - both voluntary and involuntary - who go through life without committing any sexual crime. You can't even begin to guess what fantasies they have in their minds, but it's a bit stupid to assume that if they haven' acted, they must therefore not have any untoward fantasies.

Ultimately, the whole thing boils down to one question: if people with pedophile or rape fantasies believe themselves to be safe, why in the hell would you expect them to tell if they did...?

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

.... except that's not happening. And part of the problem is fear of insolation and ostracisation. Part of the problem is also that a lot of pedophiles don't see themselves as dangerous because they don't feel under pressure to act and probably think they're safe around kids. Remember: Tim Allen raised three kids before he was outed, and look how that turned out.

The vast majority of people who are known to be pedophiles are known to be so for the sole reason they got caught abusing. That's not going to change under the self-commitment theory. Or if it is, please tell me how.

Except what’s not happening? We do commit people who present as a danger to themselves or others, regularly, and not just paedophiles, but anyone with a condition the degree to which can mean they present a danger to themselves or others. It’s obvious that we are only aware of paedophiles when we become aware of the fact that they are paedophiles, otherwise we generally tend to accept people as they present themselves, so someone like Tim Allen was able to get away with what he was doing because nobody was aware of what he was doing. At least we would like to think that nobody was aware of what he was doing, because we would like to think that if they were, they would not cover it up.

The idea of self-commitment isn’t about whether or not we are aware that someone is a paedophile. They are aware they’re a paedophile and they are seeking help for their own benefit. That they are not going to be abusing children is a secondary benefit to society. Society does not reward people for not causing harm to other people. It’s generally expected that people understand that they shouldn’t cause harm to other people.

Not sure I follow: you want to hold them responsible for an act before they carry out an act...? How do you know they'll commit an act?

No, I’m not suggesting we hold people responsible for something they haven’t thought or done. We do hold people responsible for their own thoughts and attitudes and actions, unless they are considered mentally incompetent or incapacitated to the degree for which they cannot be held accountable for their thoughts and actions. In those cases they are generally committed to an institution in an attempt to rehabilitate them and prevent them from presenting as a danger to either themselves or others.

How many pedophiles do you think go through entire lifetimes without every abusing, or without ever getting caught abusing?

I have no idea. Nobody does, and anyone who suggests that they could with any degree of certainty, can be easily dismissed as having no idea what they’re talking about.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Except what’s not happening? We do commit people who present as a danger to themselves or others, regularly, and not just paedophiles, but anyone with a condition the degree to which can mean they present a danger to themselves or others. It’s obvious that we are only aware of paedophiles when we become aware of the fact that they are paedophiles, otherwise we generally tend to accept people as they present themselves, so someone like Tim Allen was able to get away with what he was doing because nobody was aware of what he was doing. At least we would like to think that nobody was aware of what he was doing, because we would like to think that if they were, they would not cover it up.

The idea of self-commitment isn’t about whether or not we are aware that someone is a paedophile. They are aware they’re a paedophile and they are seeking help for their own benefit. That they are not going to be abusing children is a secondary benefit to society. Society does not reward people for not causing harm to other people. It’s generally expected that people understand that they shouldn’t cause harm to other people.

No, I’m not suggesting we hold people responsible for something they haven’t thought or done. We do hold people responsible for their own thoughts and attitudes and actions, unless they are considered mentally incompetent or incapacitated to the degree for which they cannot be held accountable for their thoughts and actions. In those cases they are generally committed to an institution in an attempt to rehabilitate them and prevent them from presenting as a danger to either themselves or others.

But my point is: it's not happening.

My question was: why do you still think such an idea will work when self-commitment is not happening?

I have no idea. Nobody does, and anyone who suggests that they could with any degree of certainty, can be easily dismissed as having no idea what they’re talking about.

Exactly. So how can you even begin to consider policy without such information? How can you even form an opinion?
(BTW - I mean "you" in the general sense more than "you" personally here)

I'm guessing as much as anyone, but I believe that if the majority of pedophiles were dangerous, there'd be a hell of a lot more abuse children out there. I also think (with admittedly no way of knowing) that there are far more pedophiles out there. Even a rate of 0.1% would indicate something like a twenty or thirty thousand in Dublin alone.

Hannibal_Smith

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm guessing as much as anyone, but I believe that if the majority of pedophiles were dangerous, there'd be a hell of a lot more abuse children out there. I also think (with admittedly no way of knowing) that there are far more pedophiles out there. Even a rate of 0.1% would indicate something like a twenty or thirty thousand in Dublin alone.

That's just subjective guesswork, as you say yourself. It is no more valid than any one else's opinion on the matter. You've no more of an idea than anyone else on the subject, so how can you argue one way or the other?

If you knew someone was a paedophile you wouldn't allow them babysit your kids though, yeah? I mean, given that studies are so unreliable etc?

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Any such study would be blatanatly (and obviously!) flawed on the basis that they could only conisder pedophiles who have offended, so therefore obviously have low impulse control and empathy levels!

How many pedophiles are they that are totally in control of themselves and very empathetic towards other people and have never had a problem? It could be 1%, it could be 99%,

Nope, the studies included paedophiles who had not committed child sexual abuse and exploitation. I do agree with you though that there is simply no way I’d knowing with any degree of certainty the figures for the number of paedophiles who are able to exercise self-control over their condition. In those cases though, they aren’t presenting as a danger to themselves or others, and so they aren’t causing anyone any harm. It doesn’t follow that they should expect anyone to accept that they have a condition which predisposes them to a sexual or romantic attraction to children as though those children are mere objects like any other paraphilia which predisposes people to an attraction to objects from fire hydrants to trees. Have at it as long as they’re not causing harm either to themselves or to other people as far as I personally am concerned.

Again - how to you know this when you can't include non-abusing pedohiles for consideration?

Because we can include non-abusing paedophiles for consideration. Why do you think we shouldn’t, or couldn’t, when we do?

There are plenty of celibate people out there - both voluntary and involuntary - who go through life without committing any sexual crime. You can't even begin to guess what fantasies they have in their minds, but it's a bit stupid to assume that if they haven' acted, they must therefore not have any untoward fantasies.

I didn’t? I’m aware of people who have incredibly dark fantasies, I’m aware of people who have indulged in those fantasies. I don’t particularly care for what fantasies other people have, while I’m not aware of them. If people make me aware of their fantasies, they’re putting me in a position where I have to make a judgment call on the basis of this new information they have just provided. I’m a pretty open-minded guy with regard to sex and sexuality, but anything which involves either children or animals is absolutely crossing a line for me personally, and I have the same right as anyone to say I do not accept that, I outright reject it and wish to have no association with anyone who harbours those sorts of fantasies. Dealing with that rejection is their responsibility, not mine.

Ultimately, the whole thing boils down to one question: if people with pedophile or rape fantasies believe themselves to be safe, why in the hell would you expect them to tell if they did...?

I wouldn’t expect them to tell, and I don’t care what fantasies they hold as long as I am not made aware that they harbour those sorts of fantasies. There are plenty of fantasies I hold that I am aware would be generally considered socially unacceptable, and I am aware that indulging in those fantasies would cause harm to other people. I do not experience any mental distress from having those fantasies, whereas someone who has a compulsion to indulge their fantasies does, often because they are prohibited from indulging their fantasies, and that’s why they seek acceptance from society to indulge their fantasies. For some people, that lack of social acceptance, that they are aware their attitudes and behaviours are taboo, that they are consciously aware of the stigma surrounding their attitudes and behaviours, can often be more of a turn-on, increasing their desire to indulge in behaviours and attitudes from which they derive pleasure and satisfaction, allowing their desires to be temporarily sated.

Ulysses Gaze

Fann Linn wrote: »

2 week old baby raped in the north. There should be no mercy shown to paedophiles.

And yet they'll be ****ing morons like the German Student telling us we need to empathise and sympathise with the plight of these ****ing degenerates.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But my point is: it's not happening.

My question was: why do you still think such an idea will work when self-commitment is not happening?

Your second point is based on your first assumption, and the fact is that there are paedophiles who seek treatment for their condition. It is happening.

Exactly. So how can you even begin to consider policy without such information? How can you even form an opinion?
(BTW - I mean "you" in the general sense more than "you" personally here)

I'm guessing as much as anyone, but I believe that if the majority of pedophiles were dangerous, there'd be a hell of a lot more abuse children out there. I also think (with admittedly no way of knowing) that there are far more pedophiles out there. Even a rate of 0.1% would indicate something like a twenty or thirty thousand in Dublin alone.

We can only formulate policies based upon what we know. From what we know we can also extrapolate a great deal of information which is also useful in forming policies. Unfortunately we will never have a complete picture of the scale of the issue, and therefore any policies we do formulate will always be considered insufficient by individuals as they will never be able to address every individual eventuality.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

That's just subjective guesswork, as you say yourself. It is no more valid than any one else's opinion on the matter. You've no more of an idea than anyone else on the subject, so how can you argue one way or the other?

I can't. That's my point.

If you knew someone was a paedophile you wouldn't allow them babysit your kids though, yeah? I mean, given that studies are so unreliable etc?

Is this actually relevant to any part of my argument?:rolleyes:

Hannibal_Smith

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Is this actually relevant to any part of my argument?:rolleyes:

I believe it is....no answer then?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, the studies included paedophiles who had not committed child sexual abuse and exploitation. I do agree with you though that there is simply no way I’d knowing with any degree of certainty the figures for the number of paedophiles who are able to exercise self-control over their condition. In those cases though, they aren’t presenting as a danger to themselves or others, and so they aren’t causing anyone any harm. It doesn’t follow that they should expect anyone to accept that they have a condition which predisposes them to a sexual or romantic attraction to children as though those children are mere objects like any other paraphilia which predisposes people to an attraction to objects from fire hydrants to trees. Have at it as long as they’re not causing harm either to themselves or to other people as far as I personally am concerned.





Because we can include non-abusing paedophiles for consideration. Why do you think we shouldn’t, or couldn’t, when we do?

And how did they find these pedophiles? Can you link to the study? Because at this point, all I have is your word for it and it still sounds very flawed.

And where were they found? Because if I was a pedophile the last thing I'd do is coming forward.

Unless it's a reperesentative field group - which is impossible to say one way or the other - the study is flawed.

I didn’t? I’m aware of people who have incredibly dark fantasies, I’m aware of people who have indulged in those fantasies. I don’t particularly care for what fantasies other people have, while I’m not aware of them. If people make me aware of their fantasies, they’re putting me in a position where I have to make a judgment call on the basis of this new information they have just provided. I’m a pretty open-minded guy with regard to sex and sexuality, but anything which involves either children or animals is absolutely crossing a line for me personally, and I have the same right as anyone to say I do not accept that, I outright reject it and wish to have no association with anyone who harbours those sorts of fantasies. Dealing with that rejection is their responsibility, not mine.


I wouldn’t expect them to tell, and I don’t care what fantasies they hold as long as I am not made aware that they harbour those sorts of fantasies. There are plenty of fantasies I hold that I am aware would be generally considered socially unacceptable, and I am aware that indulging in those fantasies would cause harm to other people. I do not experience any mental distress from having those fantasies, whereas someone who has a compulsion to indulge their fantasies does, often because they are prohibited from indulging their fantasies, and that’s why they seek acceptance from society to indulge their fantasies. For some people, that lack of social acceptance, that they are aware their attitudes and behaviours are taboo, that they are consciously aware of the stigma surrounding their attitudes and behaviours, can often be more of a turn-on, increasing their desire to indulge in behaviours and attitudes from which they derive pleasure and satisfaction, allowing their desires to be temporarily sated.

Then no one is going to come forward, which makes it more dangerous to society. AGAIN - my point.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And how did they find these pedophiles? Can you link to the study? Because at this point, all I have is your word for it and it still sounds very flawed.

And where were they found? Because if I was a pedophile the last thing I'd do is coming forward.

Unless it's a reperesentative field group - which is impossible to say one way or the other - the study is flawed.

Then no one is going to come forward, which makes it more dangerous to society. AGAIN - my point.

Undoubtedly every single study will be flawed, I acknowledged this earlier myself, but your point is that paedophiles do not come forward for these studies or do not self-report. They do. This is a fairly recent article from 2015 which examines some of the studies in one place -

The Neurobiology and Psychology of Pedophilia: Recent Advances and Challenges


Of course I agree with you that paedophiles who do not come forward are a danger to society, but the argument that they would come forward if paedophilia were considered more socially acceptable is simply not borne out by the evidence we have to hand. On principle alone, as I have also pointed out earlier - we do not allow any group to hold society to ransom in that if they are not accepted by society, they will continue to cause harm to other people.

All the evidence we have available to us suggests that people who think like that will not only continue to indulge their behaviours and attitudes, but that they will escalate, precisely because of their maladjusted thought processes which allow them to justify their attitudes and behaviours towards other people to themselves with no regard for the consequences to victims of their attitudes and behaviours.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I believe it is....no answer then?

You quote the part of my argument this relates to babysitting and tell me how your question ties in and I'll very gladly answer it. Otherwise I'll dismiss it as an immature dig from someone who has no intention of contributing to the debate and leave you to your personally attack someone else.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Undoubtedly every single study will be flawed, I acknowledged this earlier myself, but your point is that paedophiles do not come forward for these studies or do not self-report. They do. This is a fairly recent article from 2015 which examines some of the studies in one place -

The Neurobiology and Psychology of Pedophilia: Recent Advances and Challenges


Of course I agree with you that paedophiles who do not come forward are a danger to society, but the argument that they would come forward if paedophilia were considered more socially acceptable is simply not borne out by the evidence we have to hand. On principle alone, as I have also pointed out earlier - we do not allow any group to hold society to ransom in that if they are not accepted by society, they will continue to cause harm to other people.

All the evidence we have available to us suggests that people who think like that will not only continue to indulge their behaviours and attitudes, but that they will escalate, precisely because of their maladjusted thought processes which allow them to justify their attitudes and behaviours towards other people to themselves with no regard for the consequences to victims of their attitudes and behaviours.

Which, again, I'm not disagreeing with, but returns us full circle: how do we deal with the problem before it occurs, and not after. Because self-commitment is not happening.

ADDITIONAL - can you tell me which part of your link relates to the study, how many people were interviewed and how they were found?

Hannibal_Smith

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You quote the part of my argument this relates to babysitting and tell me how your question ties in and I'll very gladly answer it. Otherwise I'll dismiss it as an immature dig from someone who has no intention of contributing to the debate and leave you to your personally attack someone else.

Immature dig? Personal attack? I've no idea who you are and don't think I've even posted with you before. Why would I launch a personal attack on you. I asked a question, which you refuse to answer.

If you knew someone was a paedophile you wouldn't allow them babysit your kids though, yeah? I mean, given that studies are so unreliable etc?


How on earth is that a personal attack?

Fair enough, don't answer it. But reel in the dramatics.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Immature dig? Personal attack? I've no idea who you are and don't think I've even posted with you before. Why would I launch a personal attack on you. I asked a question, which you refuse to answer.

If you knew someone was a paedophile you wouldn't allow them babysit your kids though, yeah? I mean, given that studies are so unreliable etc?


How on earth is that a personal attack?

Fair enough, don't answer it. But reel in the dramatics.

The implication that I'd let a pedophile babysit which, if not based on something I've written can only be personal. You are dismissed.

Hannibal_Smith

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The implication that I'd let a pedophile babysit which, if not based on something I've written can only be personal. You are dismissed.

Dismissed? What are you the thread police? :pac: You're a poster here the same as me :pac:

You are grasping at straws and trying all tactics possible to not answer the question. As you've taken such offence to the question, that's my answer.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Which, again, I'm not disagreeing with, but returns us full circle: how do we deal with the problem before it occurs, and not after. Because self-commitment is not happening.

The issue for me is child protection - protecting children from paedophiles, in the same ways as we endeavour to protect children from anything which would cause them harm, or protect them from people who would seek to cause them harm. That way, we reduce the risk of exposing children to harm. Paedophiles will be paedophiles, but they aren’t society’s problem, and certainly they aren’t my problem.

ADDITIONAL - can you tell me which part of your link relates to the study, how many people were interviewed and how they were found?

You’ll have to read the article for yourself. Your original point was that paedophiles do not come forward, and that’s the only point I was showing you was simply an ill-informed assumption based upon a lack of awareness of the numerous studies that have included paedophiles as participants in a many studies who have not committed child sexual abuse and exploitation -

From a clinical perspective, it is necessary to stress that there are pedophilic men who restrict their desire for sexual contact with children to fantasies only, and other men who are at risk to commit an offense because fantasy alone does not satisfy their sexual desire. This second group is potential offenders who wish to reduce their increasingly overwhelming impulses with therapeutic help (Beier et al., 2009a,b; Schaefer et al., 2010; Wakefield, 2012). It is possible for these men to be diagnosed with Pedophilic Disorder – due to experiencing interpersonal distress – without them committing an offense.

The other group of pedophilic men includes those who have committed sexual offenses against children. These individuals may feel remorse (and seek help to avoid a relapse), while others do not. Note that both fulfill criterion B of the DSM-5, as shown in Table ​Table1,1, means that it has to be diagnosed as Pedophilic Disorder. Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish between the exclusive type of pedophilia (attracted only to children) and non-exclusive type, and whether the person is attracted to males, attracted to females, or to both.

It is a completely different situation for perpetrators who committed sexual offenses against children, which were not caused by a pedophilic preference. Those are the surrogate types of sex offenders and can be diagnosed within the category of impulse-control disorder, accounting for the lack of a sexual preference for children but the committed act of CSA (DSM-5: 312.89; ICD-10: 63.8). Moreover, most sexual assaults happen in the “Dunkelfeld” for approximately every reported case of CSA; another five are left unreported, suggest some scholars (Hall and Hall, 2007; Seto, 2009). Dunkelfeld is a German word that literally translates to “dark field.”

It is of great importance for clinical diagnosis whether or not an erotic preference for the body scheme of children on the fantasy-level exists. There is a high chance that this information would be given voluntarily by self-referred, self-motivated pedophilic men, but less likely by those who are already involved with the legal system (probation etc.). It is therefore essential for the assessment and a reliable diagnosis to obtain a cooperation/compliance level. In self-motivated pedophiles, this collaboration is highest and makes them a highly interesting target group for research (see Section “Methods for Diagnosing Pedophilia”).

This underlines that pedophilia as a sexual preference must be seen independently from sexual offending against children – otherwise there would be only offending pedophiles. From a research point of view, it is imperative to understand in what way the neurobiological conditions – notwithstanding sexual preference – encourage the sexual behavior. These are possibly the same mechanisms that also encourage offense-like behavior in men with other sexual preferences (for instance in the case of rape on the background of sexual preference for adult women). Additionally, research efforts have to unravel which neurobiological mechanisms determine and regulate sexual preference, and how preference and behavior are interconnected.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The issue for me is child protection - protecting children from paedophiles, in the same ways as we endeavour to protect children from anything which would cause them harm, or protect them from people who would seek to cause them harm. That way, we reduce the risk of exposing children to harm. Paedophiles will be paedophiles, but they aren’t society’s problem, and certainly they aren’t my problem.

I'd argue that is society's must vulnerable people are being attacked, it is society's problem.

My points are still:
1 - it's a problem society is too scared to address.
2 - while ostracising pedophiles it makes them less likely to engage or cooperate and less likely to seek help and therefore more likely to offend.

You’ll have to read the article for yourself. Your original point was that paedophiles do not come forward, and that’s the only point I was showing you was simply an ill-informed assumption based upon a lack of awareness of the numerous studies that have included paedophiles as participants in a many studies who have not committed child sexual abuse and exploitation -

Was at work, didn't have much time (still don't), but it's an interesting one, I'll give you that. Problem is it doesn't specificially back up your original point that pedophiles can't control their impulses and lack empathy. The article admits this. "This underlines that pedophilia as a sexual preference must be seen independently from sexual offending against children – otherwise there would be only offending pedophiles." I am accepthing that there are self-referals, but also suggesting that such numbers would be in the minority. Furthermore,

Nor can I find any specific data of how many people were involved, how many had never offended (or been caught - another variable) and what the findings were with regard to impulse control and morality.

Ultimately, there are simply not enough numbers and too many variables for such a study to be reliable.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd argue that is society's must vulnerable people are being attacked, it is society's problem.

My points are still:
1 - it's a problem society is too scared to address.
2 - while ostracising pedophiles it makes them less likely to engage or cooperate and less likely to seek help and therefore more likely to offend.

And I'd agree with you that if society's most vulnerable people were being attacked, it is society's problem. I'm assuming you're referring to children. The protection of children is certainly not a problem that society is too scared to address, and there are numerous laws and policies in place to protect children. Could we be doing more? Always. Are we afraid to do more? Certainly not.

Seeking help is paedophiles own responsibility to themselves. It simply doesn't follow that if paedophiles do not seek help, that they are more likely to offend. The only thing that is more likely to have a paedophile commit an offence is if they themselves choose to commit an offence.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Was at work, didn't have much time (still don't), but it's an interesting one, I'll give you that. Problem is it doesn't specificially back up your original point that pedophiles can't control their impulses and lack empathy. The article admits this. "This underlines that pedophilia as a sexual preference must be seen independently from sexual offending against children – otherwise there would be only offending pedophiles." I am accepthing that there are self-referals, but also suggesting that such numbers would be in the minority. Furthermore,

That's not the point I was making PB. I was making exactly the same point as was made in the article, that lower impulse control and lack of empathy are not harmful in and of themselves, and are observed in the general population, which makes the correlation between them and paedophilia just that - a correlation, not a causation. I was being critical of the studies and acknowledging the faults in their methodology -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There have been studies that people with paedophilia have lower impulse control and lower capacity for empathy than the general population, but the major criticism of those studies are selection bias, correlation as opposed to causation, and small numbers. Lower impulse control and lower capacity for empathy are not in and of themselves inherently harmful, but in individuals with conditions such as paedophilia, they can present as a danger to themselves or others.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nor can I find any specific data of how many people were involved, how many had never offended (or been caught - another variable) and what the findings were with regard to impulse control and morality.

Ultimately, there are simply not enough numbers and too many variables for such a study to be reliable.

If you read the studies linked to in that article (and there are many, not just one), they give you the specific data you're looking for, and that's why I suggested you read it for yourself, because that's how you'll find what you're looking for, as opposed to expecting that I should do your homework for you. I have work to do too and simply don't have the time to be entertaining question after question after question when it appears you're not even interested in taking the time to read my posts properly.