Father jailed for raping son.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-10-2016 06:37PM

Yeah I wouldn't mind the papers too much. Hey give some of the story. It's fine if that's all you hear about but you cant mistake it for the whole story.

You acknowledge that there are so many causal factors in creating a perpetrator. What causes do you mean? When you get down to listing problems, I'd be surprised if you don't find that most of them involve abuse if one kind or another.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-10-2016 06:46PM

lawlolawl wrote:

He'll get the best of medical care, 3 square meals and pretty much anything he wants to address his "needs".

Yes. That's the minimum that a 1st world country justice system would do.
Why did you put needs in commas?

lawlolawl wrote:

He'll more than likely have a considerably better life than his victim will.

That's desperately sad. He won't have freedom though that's something

HS3 · 10-10-2016 06:55PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Sadly fourteen years is probably less than the time the child was subjected to abuse.

Are these people psychiatrically damaged themselves, and if so, how do they escape notice?

Or are they just BAD?

Is it a control thing?

Is it manipulation on a depraved scale?

No one seems to know why these men (mostly) engage in these awful acts towards their own children. Just sickens me.

But it is still going on as we speak sadly. The prevalence of paedophilia and incest is just beyond belief.

It honestly depends. A child abuser isn't necessarily a paedophile. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to children.

A child abuser may not be attracted to children, but do it for whatever reason.

I was abused as a kid. I don't believe the person was a paedophile but just used me for his own thrills. I dont believe he was abused either, but i dont know. But i would have thought it would have come out over the years if he was. He died before I had the cop on to ask, which is why I have done a bit of reading on it. Don't want to come across as a weirdo who looks up these things for the craic

Ralf and Florian · 10-10-2016 07:09PM

Summer wind wrote: »

It said in the report that this evil bastard made the little boy have sex with his own mother. How in the name of Jesus was he only sentenced to 14 years?

He was cleared of that.To be honest that's one many things about the case that I can't get my head around.The boy was supposed to be six at the time,how would it even be possible?

Spanish Eyes · 10-10-2016 07:18PM

HS3 wrote: »

It honestly depends. A child abuser isn't necessarily a paedophile. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to children.

A child abuser may not be attracted to children, but do it for whatever reason.

I was abused as a kid. I don't believe the person was a paedophile but just used me for his own thrills. I dont believe he was abused either, but i dont know. But i would have thought it would have come out over the years if he was. He died before I had the cop on to ask, which is why I have done a bit of reading on it. Don't want to come across as a weirdo who looks up these things for the craic

Hope you are ok now. As if it is that simple. But best of luck anyway.

I just never know what to think about these abusers. Mad, Bad, Sad, or just plain sadistic with no empathy or understanding about what they do.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-10-2016 07:29PM

HS3 wrote:

I was abused as a kid. I don't believe the person was a paedophile but just used me for his own thrills. I dont believe he was abused either, but i dont know. But i would have thought it would have come out over the years if he was. He died before I had the cop on to ask, which is why I have done a bit of reading on it. Don't want to come across as a weirdo who looks up these things for the craic

Sorry to hear all that. I should clarify that I don't mean to say anything like most people who were abused become abusers. I'm only looking from the other direction.

Spanish Eyes wrote:

I just never know what to think about these abusers. Mad, Bad, Sad, or just plain sadistic with no empathy or understanding about what they do.

All of those things.

Grayson · 10-10-2016 07:38PM

HS3 wrote: »

I'd seriously question your friends conclusions. Child sexual abuse has so many facets to it, it would be incorrect to say in almost almost cases the abusers were abused themselves. There are some and certainly you do here it reported in cases where the abuser has said they have been abused themselves. But not all abusers have been abused and certainly not all who have been abused have the propensity to become an abuser. A lot develop into perfectly well functioning adults

It's about 1/3 of people who have been abused become abusers. That's still a very sizeable amount.

Of the rest I'd say a lot have PTSD in some form. It will take years of therapy to get over it.

10-10-2016 07:45PM

Grayson wrote: »

It's about 1/3 of people who have been abused become abusers. That's still a very sizeable amount.

Of the rest I'd say a lot have PTSD in some form. It will take years of therapy to get over it.

It's a trauma which can destroy a person. In particular if it occurs at a very young age during those important years of development.
Regarding the view that victims of abuse go on to be abusers, well I'm just not sure. I would need to look up the research. In my own experience I have yet to come across a person who who was abused as a child and who then went on to carry out the same as an adult.

HS3 · 10-10-2016 07:47PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

HS3 wrote: »

It honestly depends. A child abuser isn't necessarily a paedophile. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to children.

A child abuser may not be attracted to children, but do it for whatever reason.

I was abused as a kid. I don't believe the person was a paedophile but just used me for his own thrills. I dont believe he was abused either, but i dont know. But i would have thought it would have come out over the years if he was. He died before I had the cop on to ask, which is why I have done a bit of reading on it. Don't want to come across as a weirdo who looks up these things for the craic

Hope you are ok now. As if it is that simple. But best of luck anyway.

I just never know what to think about these abusers. Mad, Bad, Sad, or just plain sadistic with no empathy or understanding about what they do.

I think I'd agree with all of that. From what I've read, and I'm no expert but I think there are a lot of reasons. But it's mad to think that a person who can know how to conduct themselves to appear like a standard human to the general public can't understand the rights and wrongs of going near a kid. So you'd wonder what would be the cause. I think even trying to understand it almost seems like trying to reason it which can be off putting to most. Fair play to the person who can do that!

HS3 · 10-10-2016 07:52PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sorry to hear all that. I should clarify that I don't mean to say anything like most people who were abused become abusers.

Yeah I get you. It's possible if your friend is involved from a forensic perspective that she's involved in pretty extreme cases like you described.

10-10-2016 08:00PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's a fascinating point. I heard about an interesting case in a forensic setting. A convicted sex offender is being prepared for transition from forensic unit, into the community under supervision. One of the members of his care team had to be moved because she became romantically attracted to him!

How could you know someone had a history as a sex offender and become attracted to them? Knowing that someone's a sex offender produces feelings of revulsion in most people.

Your example reminds me of those cases where women fall in love with prisoners who have committed atrocious crimes. There was one who visited Graeme Dwyer in prison. Now I'm not sure of the details of that but I'm guessing she was very unwell. The British crime series Happy Valley depicts such an occurance very well I believe. What is it that makes these men so seductive in the eyes of vulnerable women?

It's often said that when it comes to relationships we will be attracted, unconsciously, to a person who is similar to either parent. Perhaps these women were abused as children at the hands of dominant and aggressive men. I will safely bet that they are not stable individuals and have been traumatised themselves.

Spanish Eyes · 10-10-2016 08:04PM

To say that someone is a "Sex Offender" is really making some of their sadistic acts sound kind of normal.

A sex offender is a cop out term. Sexual predator, rapist, child abuser, and I am sure there are more would be more valid.

The Liberal folk have really got us all to think differently about all criminals. I think anyway!

Harvey Normal · 10-10-2016 08:19PM

Besides the original abuse – which is horrific – there that reference again to abuse in foster homes. I keep seeing that but it seems no cases are brought against the foster homes, and in many cases children are still sent to foster homes with these suspicions about them. What's up with that?

El_Duderino 09 · 10-10-2016 09:22PM

Spanish Eyes wrote:

To say that someone is a "Sex Offender" is really making some of their sadistic acts sound kind of normal.

A sex offender is a cop out term. Sexual predator, rapist, child abuser, and I am sure there are more would be more valid.

Sex offender is an umbrella term. Not all sexual offences are rape, so why would you call them rapists? You're proposing using 'rapist' or 'predator' as an umbrella term which is less accurate and less valid, so the opposite if what you said. Doesn't that change the meaning for someone who was actually raped?

Shouldn't we can things names that actually mean something? Don't you care about the facts?

Spanish Eyes wrote:

The Liberal folk have really got us all to think differently about all criminals. I think anyway!

What do you mean by 'liberal folk'? Do you mean people who spent some time actually learning what they're talking about? If so, then I'm sure you're welcome.

10-10-2016 09:40PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

To say that someone is a "Sex Offender" is really making some of their sadistic acts sound kind of normal.

A sex offender is a cop out term. Sexual predator, rapist, child abuser, and I am sure there are more would be more valid.

The Liberal folk have really got us all to think differently about all criminals. I think anyway!

I see where you are coming from. The term 'sex offender' is softer than rapist or child abuser. However in legal terms it wouldn't be appropriate to call a rapist a paedophile or vice versa. They are sometimes two very different categories. Sex offender is the best catch all term we have and I don't believe it has anything got to do with 'liberal folk'.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-10-2016 09:47PM

Deleted User wrote:

I see where you are coming from. The term 'sex offender' is softer than rapist or child abuser. However in legal terms it wouldn't be appropriate to call a rapist a paedophile or vice versa. They are sometimes two very different categories. Sex offender is the best catch all term we have and I don't believe it has anything got to do with 'liberal folk'.

To be fair it doesn't have anything to do with softening anything. Your second point is correct though. Accuracy might not matter to someone who's just using a news story for a hit of outrage. Anyone e who cares at all about the reality of these cases, has to be accurate in talking about them.

Anyone who commits a sexual offence is a sex offender. Someone who exposes themselves to children and runs away is a sex offender but they're not a rapist. It's simple and has nothing to do with 'liberals', whatever that even means

10-10-2016 09:50PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To be fair it doesn't have anything to do with softening anything. Your second point is correct though. Accuracy might not matter to someone who's just using a news story for a hit of outrage. Anyone e who cares at all about the reality of these cases, has to be accurate in talking about them.

Anyone who commits a sexual offence is a sex offender. Someone who exposes themselves to children and runs away is a sex offender but they're not a rapist. It's simple and has nothing to do with 'liberals', whatever that even means

I completely agree with you. I was attempting to understand Spanish Eyes position. That perhaps her issue with the term is because it isn't as hard hitting as the words predator and rapist.

R.D. aka MR.D · 10-10-2016 10:01PM

Grayson wrote: »

It's about 1/3 of people who have been abused become abusers. That's still a very sizeable amount.

Of the rest I'd say a lot have PTSD in some form. It will take years of therapy to get over it.

1/3 of people who have been abused go on to become abusers = 2/3 of people (the majority) who have been abused do not go on to become abusers.

It's a pet peeve of mine when people trot this out -'oh he/she is an abuser, he/she must have been abused in the past'. Can you imagine the stigma that that attaches to survivors? Despite the fact that the majority of survivors don't go on to abuse they have to listen to constant linking of the two things.

It's also very questionable how those statistics are formed. There are plenty of survivors who never share their story and just go about living their lives. They would be in the 2/3 but aren't counted.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-10-2016 10:03PM

Deleted User wrote:

I completely agree with you. I was attempting to understand Spanish Eyes position. That perhaps her issue with the term is because it isn't as hard hitting as the words predator and rapist.

Fair enough.

I disagree that its not hard hitting. It means that person commits offences if a sexual nature. I don't really care if they're a sadistic rapist or something less violent. I don't want to be anywhere near them.

Accuracy matters to people who work to reduce harm. Those who just want to be outraged don't tend to care as much about accuracy because it doesn't really matter to what they care about.

Less hard hitting = less outrage. Sad business

JupiterKid · 10-10-2016 10:03PM

A very sad and sick case. I just can't fathom why some people deliberately abuse children. It must often destroy the remainder of the life of the abused.

I hope the abuser spends the rest of his life in prison. Evil man.:mad:

10-10-2016 10:09PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fair enough.

I disagree that its not hard hitting. It means that person commits offences if a sexual nature. I don't really care if they're a sadistic rapist or something less violent. I don't want to be anywhere near them.

Accuracy matters to people who work to reduce harm. Those who just want to be outraged don't tend to care as much about accuracy because it doesn't really matter to what they care about.

Less hard hitting = less outrage. Sad business

Oh absolutely. It doesn't matter to me what the term is. In my eyes that person has committed an abhorrent crime and I want nothing to do with them. I have never considered the connection between the words used and the level of outrage experienced. It shouldn't matter.

mzungu · 10-10-2016 10:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's often said that when it comes to relationships we will be attracted, unconsciously, to a person who is similar to either parent. Perhaps these women were abused as children at the hands of dominant and aggressive men. I will safely bet that they are not stable individuals and have been traumatised themselves.

Yeah, Hybristophilia is a weird one (called Bonnie and Clyde syndrome in some quarters). Even the likes of Ted Bundy, Dahmer and Ramirez used to get tonnes of fan mail. One theory put forth uses evolutionary psychology to explain that what attracts some women to that sort of man could be their aggressiveness, thus offering protection. Another study in Japan showed that the bodily reactions of women visiting killers in jail, were quite similar to those who were performing an extreme sport. Make of that what you will !

A similar theory is offered in the book A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World’s Largest Experiment Reveals About Human Desire. Thousands of romance novels were looked at, alongside other stuff like analysing responses on websites, forums etc. showed an overall preference for strong dominant males. While consciously the preference is for somebody who is kind and respectful, the inner cavewoman knows that Mr. Kind and Genteel would get an epic ass whopping by whatever nasty critter was doing the rounds.

Of course, others have stated their primary motive for doing it is an easy road to fame and to try and cash in on it. Which, in a lot of cases is true I'd imagine.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-10-2016 10:19PM

R.D. aka MR.D wrote:

It's a pet peeve of mine when people trot this out -'oh he/she is an abuser, he/she must have been abused in the past'. Can you imagine the stigma that that attaches to survivors? Despite the fact that the majority of survivors don't go on to abuse they have to listen to constant linking of the two things.

You're linking 2 different things. The rate of abusers who were abused and the rate if abused who become abusers. They're not the same groups.

FWIW it irks me too when people are so quick to say the lives of the abused are ruined and destroyed.

I wouldn't have any idea how you could create reliable or valid tests for measuring the number of abused who become abusers. Some people don't even know they were abused because it was just a normal part of their childhood.

My friend had worked with people with learning difficulties and the rate of people with inappropriate sexual behaviour who were abused was staggering. Some didn't even know it. It would come out down the line that their uncle used to play the 'sit on my lap ' game, which involved sexual abuse but they didn't know it.

Those people were sexualised in an inappropriate way at an inappropriate age. They won't show up on any stats and won't go in the research.

R.D. aka MR.D wrote:

It's also very questionable how those statistics are formed. There are plenty of survivors who never share their story and just go about living their lives. They would be in the 2/3 but aren't counted.

Likewise, plenty of abusers don't tell anyone they were abused, or were abused and repressed it and so on.

It's not about stigmatising anyone. Reality matters.

HS3 · 10-10-2016 10:20PM

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

It's about 1/3 of people who have been abused become abusers. That's still a very sizeable amount.

Of the rest I'd say a lot have PTSD in some form. It will take years of therapy to get over it.

1/3 of people who have been abused go on to become abusers = 2/3 of people (the majority) who have been abused do not go on to become abusers.

It's a pet peeve of mine when people trot this out -'oh he/she is an abuser, he/she must have been abused in the past'. Can you imagine the stigma that that attaches to survivors? Despite the fact that the majority of survivors don't go on to abuse they have to listen to constant linking of the two things.

It's also very questionable how those statistics are formed. There are plenty of survivors who never share their story and just go about living their lives. They would be in the 2/3 but aren't counted.

Precisely what I was going to post.

I would be interested in knowing where the stats came from. There are so many who don't speak up, there are so many abusers who are never caught, how can that be a reliable statistic?

Maybe in the most extreme/depraved cases it's true, but it can't be an accurate number and it can't be the 'almost all ' idea that was put forward earlier in the thread.

JP Liz V1 · 10-10-2016 10:23PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

14 years? The poor little kid. 8 years old describing himself as feeling like a dog nobody wanted. That's devastating. How anyone could hurt a child like that, or watch as someone hurt a child like that, I can't understand.

Some animals should not have kids :mad: that poor child he will never heal, the animal dad even castration is too good

foggy_lad · 10-10-2016 10:27PM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Some animals should not have kids :mad: that poor child he will never heal, the animal dad even castration is too good

Sterilisation should be a realistic option for some men and women who are basically unable to care properly for a child. The other option is to let them churn out babies and stick them in care as they pop out but some like this poor child will fall through the cracks in our miserable child welfare systems.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-10-2016 10:27PM

HS3 wrote:

Maybe in the most extreme/depraved cases it's true, but it can't be an accurate number and it can't be the 'almost all ' idea that was put forward earlier in the thread.

The stat above is only discussing sexual abuse and as you point out, lots of people won't disclose their own abuse or will never be caught.

That's just my friends experience of working with sexual abusers in a forensic setting. She meets a lot of offenders and reads a lot of case files. Knowing their history is important to managing their behaviour.

Unfortunately thats the experience she has.

10-10-2016 10:27PM

mzungu wrote: »

Yeah, Hybristophilia is a weird one (called Bonnie and Clyde syndrome in some quarters). Even the likes of Ted Bundy, Dahmer and Ramirez used to get tonnes of fan mail. One theory put forth uses evolutionary psychology to explain that what attracts some women to that sort of man could be their aggressiveness, thus offering protection. Another study in Japan showed that the bodily reactions of women visiting killers in jail, were quite similar to those who were performing an extreme sport. Make of that what you will !

A similar theory is offered in the book A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World’s Largest Experiment Reveals About Human Desire. Thousands of romance novels were looked at, alongside other stuff like analysing responses on websites, forums etc. showed an overall preference for strong dominant males. While consciously the preference is for somebody who is kind and respectful, the inner cavewoman knows that Mr Kind and Genteel would get an epic ass whopping by whatever nasty critter was doing the rounds.

Of course, others have stated their primary motive for doing it is an easy road to fame and to try and cash in on it. Which, in a lot of cases is true I'd imagine.

That is very interesting. I'm thinking about the different types of people we are attracted to. Some women like you mention prefer a more dominant partner. Yet that doesn't mean they will allow themselves to be treated badly or their partner is abusive. Dominant could mean very assertive, decisive around certain issues, makes the woman feel looked after. It doesn't have to be anything sinister.

So I would say that it's at the furthest end of that scale. A little like our sexual proclivities and what separates fetish from deviance. Taking the example again of the dominant man. Perhaps his partner likes him to tie her up, it's a bit of fun for them. They have a healthy relationship and sex life with intimacy and openness. But what about the woman who wants to be tied up, to have hands tight around her throat and be beaten black and blue? Is it possible that she is reliving early incidences of abuse because it is the only way she knows closeness?

There is definitely something in the subconscious mind of certain women who seek out such "relationships".

HS3 · 10-10-2016 10:30PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

R.D. aka MR.D wrote:

It's a pet peeve of mine when people trot this out -'oh he/she is an abuser, he/she must have been abused in the past'. Can you imagine the stigma that that attaches to survivors? Despite the fact that the majority of survivors don't go on to abuse they have to listen to constant linking of the two things.

You're linking 2 different things. The rate of abusers who were abused and the rate if abused who become abusers. They're not the same groups.

FWIW it irks me too when people are so quick to say the lives of the abused are ruined and destroyed.

I wouldn't have any idea how you could create reliable or valid tests for measuring the number of abused who become abusers. Some people don't even know they were abused because it was just a normal part of their childhood.

My friend had worked with people with learning difficulties and the rate of people with inappropriate sexual behaviour who were abused was staggering. Some didn't even know it. It would come out down the line that their uncle used to play the 'sit on my lap ' game, which involved sexual abuse but they didn't know it.

Those people were sexualised in an inappropriate way at an inappropriate age. They won't show up on any stats and won't go in the research.

R.D. aka MR.D wrote:

It's also very questionable how those statistics are formed. There are plenty of survivors who never share their story and just go about living their lives. They would be in the 2/3 but aren't counted.

Likewise, plenty of abusers don't tell anyone they were abused, or were abused and repressed it and so on.

It's not about stigmatising anyone. Reality matters.

So if there are people who don't show up on any stats how can your friend say almost all abusers were abused? There are abusers out there who never abused and yet they do it. There are so many types of cases and types of offenders.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-10-2016 10:38PM

HS3 wrote:

So if there are people who don't show up on any stats how can your friend say almost all abusers were abused? There are abusers out there who never abused and yet they do it. There are so many types of cases and types of offenders.

She's not doing academic research. Standards of evidence for academic research would be different. The research probably only counted convicted cases.

She's involved in creating psychological plans for residents in a forensic hospital. Not quite a prison and not quite not a prison. The evidence of circumstances such as abuse, would be much lower to create a care plan than the evidence needed to be included in academic research.

Father jailed for raping son.

Comments