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

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Again, back to square one. By sitting around and waiting until the child is abused (only way to identify a pedophile), or sitting around and hoping the pedophile will self-refer (not happening in high enough numbers) we are, basically, sitting around and doing nothing. Of course we could do more. Saying it' society's fault and not mine isn't really addressing the problem, but that's your choice.

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.





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 -








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.

You quoted conclusions based on a study you read. I'd like to read that self same study. My point is that such a study in a balanced form with representative field study group couldn't actaully exist, so how could I find it?

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again, back to square one. By sitting around and waiting until the child is abused (only way to identify a pedophile), or sitting around and hoping the pedophile will self-refer (not happening in high enough numbers) we are, basically, sitting around and doing nothing. Of course we could do more. Saying it' society's fault and not mine isn't really addressing the problem, but that's your choice.

We're not waiting around until children are abused. We have laws and policies in place to protect children from abuse. The priority is not identifying who is or isn't a paedophile because in and of itself, paedophilia does not harm children - people do. Whether those people are paedophiles or not is of secondary concern to the commission of any criminal act. If people are not harming children, then those people aren't a problem - they're perfectly free as anyone else to go about their daily lives. There is no problem to address because they aren't causing any problem. We're not mind readers, and as long as people whether they are paedophiles or not, are not harming children, then there isn't a problem.

Let me try and put it to you this way. I go into a crowded shopping centre with my child. It doesn't matter how many other people in that shopping centre are paedophiles, they're not harming my child. They are not being presented with the opportunity to harm my child because I am protecting my child at all times. If everyone in that crowd was a paedophile, it still wouldn't matter, They're not causing any harm. I don't have to know that they are paedophiles or people who would want to harm my child, I know my child is safe.

My child is my responsibility. Policing other people's thoughts, is not my responsibility. Does that make sense? It's the way society works too - thoughts themselves are not unlawful, acting upon those thoughts and causing harm to children, is unlawful. People, as individuals, make the choice as to whether or not they act on their thoughts.

You quoted conclusions based on a study you read. I'd like to read that self same study. My point is that such a study in a balanced form with representative field study group couldn't actaully exist, so how could I find it?

No, I said 'studies', plural. I did not quote or cite any individual study. My comment was pointing out the flaws in the conclusions of many of these studies and why those conclusions are flawed -

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.

Same thing as you're doing, which is why I don't see your point, which is why I suggested you read the studies for yourself, because I don't know what you're looking for. As far as I can tell we're in agreement, so I don't know what you're trying to hammer home here? The studies are flawed? Yes, they are!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We're not waiting around until children are abused. We have laws and policies in place to protect children from abuse. The priority is not identifying who is or isn't a paedophile because in and of itself, paedophilia does not harm children - people do. Whether those people are paedophiles or not is of secondary concern to the commission of any criminal act. If people are not harming children, then those people aren't a problem - they're perfectly free as anyone else to go about their daily lives. There is no problem to address because they aren't causing any problem. We're not mind readers, and as long as people whether they are paedophiles or not, are not harming children, then there isn't a problem.

Let me try and put it to you this way. I go into a crowded shopping centre with my child. It doesn't matter how many other people in that shopping centre are paedophiles, they're not harming my child. They are not being presented with the opportunity to harm my child because I am protecting my child at all times. If everyone in that crowd was a paedophile, it still wouldn't matter, They're not causing any harm. I don't have to know that they are paedophiles or people who would want to harm my child, I know my child is safe.

My child is my responsibility. Policing other people's thoughts, is not my responsibility. Does that make sense? It's the way society works too - thoughts themselves are not unlawful, acting upon those thoughts and causing harm to children, is unlawful. People, as individuals, make the choice as to whether or not they act on their thoughts.

Once again, nothing here counters anything I've said. You're only looking after yourself and your own, fair enough. I never said you weren't.

And I'm aware we have policies - that wasn't my point. I never said there weren't studies. My point was that said policies rely on dangerous situations being flagged after they happen, not before.

No, I said 'studies', plural. I did not quote or cite any individual study. My comment was pointing out the flaws in the conclusions of many of these studies and why those conclusions are flawed -





Same thing as you're doing, which is why I don't see your point, which is why I suggested you read the studies for yourself, because I don't know what you're looking for. As far as I can tell we're in agreement, so I don't know what you're trying to hammer home here? The studies are flawed? Yes, they are!

It;s only "hammering home" because you're not reading what I've written: you made a statement that you claimed was shown in studies. Now, I'm a assuming you've read this in a study. And I can't comment on "studies" you've read without knowing what specific studies your talking about....! Three times, I've said this now. If I find a study that says something contrary it doesn't counter your point.

Can you tell me exactly what it is that you think my point is? Because I'm getting a bit tired of posting the same thing over and over and over again only for you to bring up entirely different scenarios that have nothing to do with what I've posted.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Once again, nothing here counters anything I've said. You're only looking after yourself and your own, fair enough. I never said you weren't.

And I'm aware we have policies - that wasn't my point. I never said there weren't studies. My point was that said policies rely on dangerous situations being flagged after they happen, not before.

No they do not. The idea of preventative policies is just that - prevention. Your point that anyone is waiting around for children to be abused is analogous to suggesting that anyone is equally waiting around for any number of things to happen to children as though those things are inevitable. Nobody is waiting around for children to break their legs, nobody is waiting around children to be abused.

We can implement various policies and strategies to prevent children from being harmed, and people who are determined to cause harm to children will find ways around those policies and strategies. It is their choice whether or not to harm children. Society is not responsible for their choices, they are.

Society is responsible for protecting children from people who wish to do them harm.
Society is not responsible for people who wish to do children harm.
Society does not have to accept people who wish to do children harm.

It;s only "hammering home" because you're not reading what I've written: you made a statement that you claimed was shown in studies. Now, I'm a assuming you've read this in a study. And I can't comment on "studies" you've read without knowing what specific studies your talking about....! Three times, I've said this now. If I find a study that says something contrary it doesn't counter your point.

Can you tell me exactly what it is that you think my point is? Because I'm getting a bit tired of posting the same thing over and over and over again only for you to bring up entirely different scenarios that have nothing to do with what I've posted.

I don’t know what your point is! You first of all suggested that paedophiles do not come forward to participate in studies, and when I showed you that you are wrong, you accepted that you were wrong.

When I suggested that there are flaws in the studies due to a number of factors, including small sample sizes, you’ve already made that point yourself, and I didn’t need to ask you for studies because I’m already aware of the fact that in many of the studies conducted, one of the limitations is that they are basing their conclusions on small sample sizes, and so the studies while they are interesting, really don’t tell us much. I think we’re in agreement on that? That’s why I suggested you read the studies yourself, because I don’t know what you’re looking for. You appear to be looking for a way to contradict what I’ve said, but you’re saying the same thing as I am yourself, so you would be contradicting your own points which I’ve already acknowledged are true!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No they do not. The idea of preventative policies is just that - prevention. Your point that anyone is waiting around for children to be abused is analogous to suggesting that anyone is equally waiting around for any number of things to happen to children as though those things are inevitable. Nobody is waiting around for children to break their legs, nobody is waiting around children to be abused.

We can implement various policies and strategies to prevent children from being harmed, and people who are determined to cause harm to children will find ways around those policies and strategies. It is their choice whether or not to harm children. Society is not responsible for their choices, they are.

Society is responsible for protecting children from people who wish to do them harm.
Society is not responsible for people who wish to do children harm.
Society does not have to accept people who wish to do children harm.

What preventarive polices are you refering to?

We're going around in circles again. I answered, a few days ago.

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.

They don't self-commit as you claimed.

I don’t know what your point is! You first of all suggested that paedophiles do not come forward to participate in studies, and when I showed you that you are wrong, you accepted that you were wrong.

When I suggested that there are flaws in the studies due to a number of factors, including small sample sizes, you’ve already made that point yourself, and I didn’t need to ask you for studies because I’m already aware of the fact that in many of the studies conducted, one of the limitations is that they are basing their conclusions on small sample sizes, and so the studies while they are interesting, really don’t tell us much. I think we’re in agreement on that? That’s why I suggested you read the studies yourself, because I don’t know what you’re looking for. You appear to be looking for a way to contradict what I’ve said, but you’re saying the same thing as I am yourself, so you would be contradicting your own points which I’ve already acknowledged are true!

No, my point was that pedophiles don't present themsleves for therapy or help for fear of societal reprisals.

We agreed that the study was flawed and your claims that pedophiles had low impulse contol and a lower sense of morality were unproven. Such a claim is IMPOSSIBLE to make without knowing a) what percentage of pedophiles abuse; b) what percentage don't. And, as an added variable, how can you measure what percentage have abused, but not been caught?
I'm not debating this any further without a SPECIFIC link to a SPECIFIC study that YOU read, and I'm not goggling what I claim doesn't exist.

So, that leaves us with my original point: pedophiles do not present themsleves for therapy or help for fear of societal reprisals.

Widdershins

I might be wrong but I believe Peter Thatchall who is a well known LGBT activist, quite vocal in support of Sex Self ID in Britain, has supported changing the law on paedophiles. He asserts that it is a sexual orientation, and as such, shouldn't be a crime and that it is on a par with being homosexual, bisexual, hetrosexual etc

Afro Turner

Widdershins wrote: »

I might be wrong but I believe Peter Thatchall who is a well known LGBT activist, quite vocal in support of Sex Self ID in Britain, has supported changing the law on paedophiles. He asserts that it is a sexual orientation, and as such, shouldn't be a crime and that it is on a par with being homosexual, bisexual, hetrosexual etc

These ****ing people make me sick.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What preventarive polices are you refering to?

We're going around in circles again. I answered, a few days ago.

This is one of the child protection policies in Ireland that most people will be familiar with -

Children First: National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

They don't self-commit as you claimed.

I didn't claim any such thing. You asked me how do we know who to commit, and made the point that paedophiles do not come forward. I pointed out that they do, and that's how we know who to commit. It was your claim that it is highly unlikely that they come forward, not mine -

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 simply pointed out to you that you were wrong in your assumption, which you accepted, or at least you did, until now, when you've decided to contradict yourself -

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I am accepthing that there are self-referals, but also suggesting that such numbers would be in the minority.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, my point was that pedophiles don't present themsleves for therapy or help for fear of societal reprisals.

That's those paedophiles problem, it's not society's problem.

You've yet to make a link between paedophilia and people who choose to commit child abuse? Because if you understand anything at all about paedophilia, the condition itself does not actually cause anyone with it to commit child abuse, that person has to choose to commit child abuse, and I also shouldn't need to point out that people who choose to commit child abuse are not necessarily paedophiles. You seem to be focussed on paedophiles, but paedophiles do not abuse children. People who choose to abuse children, abuse children.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We agreed that the study was flawed and your claims that pedophiles had low impulse contol and a lower sense of morality were unproven. Such a claim is IMPOSSIBLE to make without knowing a) what percentage of pedophiles abuse; b) what percentage don't. And, as an added variable, how can you measure what percentage have abused, but not been caught?
I'm not debating this any further without a SPECIFIC link to a SPECIFIC study that YOU read, and I'm not goggling what I claim doesn't exist.

Now I see where the confusion may have arisen. No, they weren't my claims, They were the claims of these studies, and I was pointing out the criticisms of these claims, criticisms which I agree with. Criticisms which you agree with.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, that leaves us with my original point: pedophiles do not present themsleves for therapy or help for fear of societal reprisals.

The fear of societal reprisals is the paedophiles problem. It's not society's responsibility to get over the revulsion we have of people who wish to commit child abuse. If paedophiles want help to cope with their condition, the help is there. If they choose not to avail of that help, and instead choose to abuse children, it is the person who abuses children who is responsible for their own attitudes and behaviours. Society is not responsible for that, nor is society waiting around for children to be abused.

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.

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is one of the child protection policies in Ireland that most people will be familiar with -

Children First: National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children





I didn't claim any such thing. You asked me how do we know who to commit, and made the point that paedophiles do not come forward. I pointed out that they do, and that's how we know who to commit. It was your claim that it is highly unlikely that they come forward, not mine -





I simply pointed out to you that you were wrong in your assumption, which you accepted, or at least you did, until now, when you've decided to contradict yourself -










That's those paedophiles problem, it's not society's problem.

You've yet to make a link between paedophilia and people who choose to commit child abuse? Because if you understand anything at all about paedophilia, the condition itself does not actually cause anyone with it to commit child abuse, that person has to choose to commit child abuse, and I also shouldn't need to point out that people who choose to commit child abuse are not necessarily paedophiles. You seem to be focussed on paedophiles, but paedophiles do not abuse children. People who choose to abuse children, abuse children.





Now I see where the confusion may have arisen. No, they weren't my claims, They were the claims of these studies, and I was pointing out the criticisms of these claims, criticisms which I agree with. Criticisms which you agree with.





The fear of societal reprisals is the paedophiles problem. It's not society's responsibility to get over the revulsion we have of people who wish to commit child abuse. If paedophiles want help to cope with their condition, the help is there. If they choose not to avail of that help, and instead choose to abuse children, it is the person who abuses children who is responsible for their own attitudes and behaviours. Society is not responsible for that, nor is society waiting around for children to be abused.

1 - I asked for policies. And when I ask "what preventative polices are you referring to?", the repsonce shoudl really include policies, not a vague 108-page document which you haven't read and I don't have time to, so again. What policies? Name the specific polices in the document that you are refering to. No a source, policies. Then we'll move on to source.

2 - Fair enough. You think people are coming forward to self commit. I don't. We agree to disagree, I suppose.

3 - Re the survey, again fair enough, but it was you who brought it up, so it was safe to believe that agreeing with it was your reason for doing so.

4 - If society is likely to inflict harm on someone coming forward to get help with a certain condition, then it stands to reason that person is not going to come forward, surely? I know you say you don't care, but if it made society a safer place for children, would you care?


This boils down to two differences: you think pedophiles will self-commit even if it means risking the wrath of society, I don't; and I believe this results in a more dangerous situation for society.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

1 - I asked for policies. And when I ask "what preventative polices are you referring to?", the repsonce shoudl really include policies, not a vague 108-page document which you haven't read and I don't have time to, so again. What policies? Name the specific polices in the document that you are refering to. No a source, policies. Then we'll move on to source.

You asked for policies, I gave you the policy from which all modern childcare protection policies in Ireland are derived. You haven’t even read it, but if you had, you’d realise it’s quite detailed. I know, because I have read it.

2 - Fair enough. You think people are coming forward to self commit. I don't. We agree to disagree, I suppose.

No we don’t agree to disagree. You’re wrong, you just don’t want to accept the fact that you’re wrong.

3 - Re the survey, again fair enough, but it was you who brought it up, so it was safe to believe that agreeing with it was your reason for doing so.

No it wasn’t safe to believe agreeing with it was my reason for doing so if you had actually read my post properly, and the post I was replying to, the first time.

4 - If society is likely to inflict harm on someone coming forward to get help with a certain condition, then it stands to reason that person is not going to come forward, surely? I know you say you don't care, but if it made society a safer place for children, would you care?

It stands to reason only in your mind so far because you’re the person who said if you were a paedophile the last thing you would do is come forward. What’s guaranteed to make society a safer place for children is when people choose not to abuse them.

What makes society a lot less safer for children is the view that paedophiles need protecting from society. No, children need protecting, from people who wish to cause them harm, and those people aren’t necessarily paedophiles. Even if every paedophile did commit themselves, what’s that supposed to do to protect children? It does nothing.

Your argument is that it would make society a safer place, but you’re still not explaining how. You still haven’t explained how making out that paedophiles are the real victims here does anything to protect children. My argument is that society is made a safer place when people who wish to abuse children, don’t. I don’t particularly want to know or associate with anyone who thinks that abusing children should ever be considered anything but repulsive.

Society is not made safer by allowing anyone to hold society to ransom. It will always be a paedophiles responsibility to seek help for their condition, and put the welfare of children above their own welfare. That’s what everyone else in society does when we endeavour to protect children from people who are more interested in protecting themselves.

This boils down to two differences: you think pedophiles will self-commit even if it means risking the wrath of society, I don't; and I believe this results in a more dangerous situation for society.

No I don’t think that. I don’t care what paedophiles do, and I don’t care what they think. I think the only thing that results in a more dangerous situation for society are idiots who think society is at fault for children being sexually abused, rather than holding the people who choose to commit child sexual abuse and exploitation responsible for their actions, and frankly at this point, I’m gone past caring what you think either.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You asked for policies, I gave you the policy from which all modern childcare protection policies in Ireland are derived. You haven’t even read it, but if you had, you’d realise it’s quite detailed. I know, because I have read it.





No we don’t agree to disagree. You’re wrong, you just don’t want to accept the fact that you’re wrong.





No it wasn’t safe to believe agreeing with it was my reason for doing so if you had actually read my post properly, and the post I was replying to, the first time.





It stands to reason only in your mind so far because you’re the person who said if you were a paedophile the last thing you would do is come forward. What’s guaranteed to make society a safer place for children is when people choose not to abuse them.

What makes society a lot less safer for children is the view that paedophiles need protecting from society. No, children need protecting, from people who wish to cause them harm, and those people aren’t necessarily paedophiles. Even if every paedophile did commit themselves, what’s that supposed to do to protect children? It does nothing.

Your argument is that it would make society a safer place, but you’re still not explaining how. You still haven’t explained how making out that paedophiles are the real victims here does anything to protect children. My argument is that society is made a safer place when people who wish to abuse children, don’t. I don’t particularly want to know or associate with anyone who thinks that abusing children should ever be considered anything but repulsive.

Society is not made safer by allowing anyone to hold society to ransom. It will always be a paedophiles responsibility to seek help for their condition, and put the welfare of children above their own welfare. That’s what everyone else in society does when we endeavour to protect children from people who are more interested in protecting themselves.





No I don’t think that. I don’t care what paedophiles do, and I don’t care what they think. I think the only thing that results in a more dangerous situation for society are idiots who think society is at fault for children being sexually abused, rather than holding the people who choose to commit child sexual abuse and exploitation responsible for their actions, and frankly at this point, I’m gone past caring what you think either.

1 - You can't name policies because you haven't read it. Now go red it or this part of the discission is over.
2 - I'm wrong for saying pedophiles don't self-commit or you're right because you don't beieve pedophiels self commit?
3 - If you're accusing me of holding society to ransom or defending pedophiles - something, because I apparently need to make this clear, I never did - then this discussion is over.