Paedophiles are all around us!

The Corinthian · 31-07-2013 11:43AM

Snake Pliisken wrote: »

I think correlatory thinking isn't very helpful in this case, opinion not based in reality do nothing but fan the flames of paranoia surrounding this incredibly sensitive topic, creating hearsay and detracting from the real problem. I think it's also prudent to say anything that happens between two consenting adults is none of our business.

I think my response was misunderstood, as I was being sarcastic.

It's a bit of a stretch to presume that just because someone may choose a partner with attributes that are superficially 'childlike' it is specifically because of their 'childlike' qualities and thus they must be pedophiles. If a man prefers a 'small' woman, is that because he is looking for someone with the same dimensions as a child, or is it simply a preference like someone who seeks someone tall or large? If a woman prefers her man to have shaved genitals, is she a pedophile? Or does preferring one's girlfriend to shave her legs and underarm hair make you a pervert too?

All this before one considers the confusion between pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia. Nabokov's Humbert Humbert is often cited as a pedophile, for example, yet he was almost certainly a hebephile.

Such correlations are frankly the product moral panic; and the fact that they invariably only cite men as pedophiles (hence why I gave a female example) underlines how irrational they are.

Emme · 31-07-2013 12:04PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think my response was misunderstood, as I was being sarcastic.

It's a bit of a stretch to presume that just because someone may choose a partner with attributes that are superficially 'childlike' it is specifically because of their 'childlike' qualities and thus they must be pedophiles. If a man prefers a 'small' woman, is that because he is looking for someone with the same dimensions as a child, or is it simply a preference like someone who seeks someone tall or large? If a woman prefers her man to have shaved genitals, is she a pedophile? Or does preferring one's girlfriend to shave her legs and underarm hair make you a pervert too?

All this before one considers the confusion between pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia. Nabokov's Humbert Humbert is often cited as a pedophile, for example, yet he was almost certainly a hebephile.

Such correlations are frankly the product moral panic; and the fact that they invariably only cite men as pedophiles (hence why I gave a female example) underlines how irrational they are.

I was unaware of the terms "hebephile" and "ephebephile" up until now. Perhaps some of those accused of child abuse in the UK will use these terms to get themselves acquitted or to reduce their sentences.

It's good to know that people who abuse 13 and 14 year olds aren't actually paedophiles but hebephiles. That really clears things up :rolleyes:

The Corinthian · 31-07-2013 12:18PM

Emme wrote: »

I was unaware of the terms "hebephile" and "ephebephile" up until now. Perhaps some of those accused of child abuse in the UK will use these terms to get themselves acquitted or to reduce their sentences.

It's good to know that people who abuse 13 and 14 year olds aren't actually paedophiles but hebephiles. That really clears things up :rolleyes:

Who suggested that hebephilia was any more acceptable than pedophilia?

My point is that people, as demonstrated by you, are happy enough coming out with pseudo-scientific theories on the subject based upon little or no actual understanding of it, so to accuse others of such paraphilias. It's that kind of combined arrogance and ignorance that leads to fiascos such pediatricians being targeted because the word 'pedo' is in their job title. That is all that such moral panic achieves.

Emme · 31-07-2013 12:33PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who suggested that hebephilia was any more acceptable than pedophilia?

My point is that people, as demonstrated by you, are happy enough coming out with pseudo-scientific theories on the subject based upon little or no actual understanding of it, so to accuse others of such paraphilias. It's that kind of combined arrogance and ignorance that leads to fiascos such pediatricians being targeted because the word 'pedo' is in their job title. That is all that such moral panic achieves.

Hardly. I might not have your extensive knowledge but I have enough basic knowledge of latin to know that "paedophile" and "paediatrician" are two entirely different things.

If hebephilia is no more acceptable than paedophilia it would have been helpful for you to state that in your previous post.

It was unfortunate about the paediatrician but most people are going to get upset if they think their children are going to be sexually assaulted. Sadly the first parts of both words are very similar and the media was trying to use a more offical term than "nonce" or "pervert".

Some of the people who have been most vilified by media coverage of paedophilia are good caring priests.

I agree that both boys and girls are the victims of pedophiles, hebephiles etc. but certain elements of the media and fashion tend to sexualise little girls more than little boys. I think this contributes to the problem of paedophilia. However, this does not negate the hidden abuse of boys by certain institutions.

Again, anyone who has suffered in the past or is suffering now should contact the rape crisis centre.

The Corinthian · 31-07-2013 12:54PM

Emme wrote: »

Hardly. I might not have your extensive knowledge but I have enough basic knowledge of latin to know that "paedophile" and "paediatrician" are two entirely different things.

Thus based upon not being a complete moron, one is perfectly qualified to suggest pseudo-scientific theories about who is a pedophile? What level of ignorance do you consider unacceptable before you can no longer make such judgments, out of interest?

If hebephilia is no more acceptable than paedophilia it would have been helpful for you to state that in your previous post.

Does one have to explicitly state this? Is your position that if one does not do so they must somehow condone it, by default? Bit nuts tbh.

It was unfortunate about the paediatrician but most people are going to get upset if they think their children are going to be sexually assaulted.

That does not excuse blind and ignorant vigilantism. It also fails to actually protect children as the typical stereotype of the pedophile is male, leading to all suspicion being directed against men, when in reality the number of female pedophiles is considered to be even underestimated, especially where it comes to the abuse of boys.

Such moral panic causes more harm to everyone; to innocent adults and to the children themselves.

Emme · 31-07-2013 03:26PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Thus based upon not being a complete moron, one is perfectly qualified to suggest pseudo-scientific theories about who is a pedophile? What level of ignorance do you consider unacceptable before you can no longer make such judgments, out of interest?

Does one have to explicitly state this? Is your position that if one does not do so they must somehow condone it, by default? Bit nuts tbh.

That does not excuse blind and ignorant vigilantism. It also fails to actually protect children as the typical stereotype of the pedophile is male, leading to all suspicion being directed against men, when in reality the number of female pedophiles is considered to be even underestimated, especially where it comes to the abuse of boys.

Such moral panic causes more harm to everyone; to innocent adults and to the children themselves.

Who said all paedophiles or hebephiles are male? It's probably 50:50

Please don't turn this into a gender debate.

clairefontaine · 31-07-2013 06:35PM

Does it really matter? They are still children.

If you really want to get precise not all child sex offenders are pedoohiles.

clairefontaine · 31-07-2013 07:56PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Thus based upon not being a complete moron, one is perfectly qualified to suggest pseudo-scientific theories about who is a pedophile? What level of ignorance do you consider unacceptable before you can no longer make such judgments, out of interest?

Does one have to explicitly state this? Is your position that if one does not do so they must somehow condone it, by default? Bit nuts tbh.

That does not excuse blind and ignorant vigilantism. It also fails to actually protect children as the typical stereotype of the pedophile is male, leading to all suspicion being directed against men, when in reality the number of female pedophiles is considered to be even underestimated, especially where it comes to the abuse of boys.

Such moral panic causes more harm to everyone; to innocent adults and to the children themselves.

What vigilantism?

Stereotypes are classifications taken too far. That's all they are.

The vast majority of child sex offenders are male. Please note I did not use any of your petty distracting classifications. I said sex offenders, all,of whom are not pedophiles. A subtle but important distinction.

Yes boys are vulnerable, particularly because they are raised to suck things up and not to be whiners. A sex offender on average assaults 150 boys before he gets caught precisely because boys and males are reared to not talk and also their shame and sense of pack menaltity loyalty is strongly reinforced. Sports is a good example of this. But by far the majority of offenders are male.

In the next town over from me a 7 year old boy was abducted from right outside his front door and raped by another boy, a 14 year old. Is the 14 year old a pedophile or a malignant opportunist? ****ed up either way. I just don't even know what to say about it, but it happens and it scares parents because it is so out of their control.

Emme · 01-08-2013 09:28AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

In the next town over from me a 7 year old boy was abducted from right outside his front door and raped by another boy, a 14 year old. Is the 14 year old a pedophile or a malignant opportunist? ****ed up either way. I just don't even know what to say about it, but it happens and it scares parents because it is so out of their control.

Both the 7 year old and the 14 year old need help. They both need to learn that this behaviour is wrong. Hopefully the 14 year old can be rehabilitated even though he committed a crime. The scary thing is, where did the 14 year old learn this behavior? Was he abused himself or was he acting out something he saw on the internet?

OldNotWIse · 01-08-2013 09:34AM

Emme wrote: »

Both the 7 year old and the 14 year old need help. They both need to learn that this behaviour is wrong. Hopefully the 14 year old can be rehabilitated even though he committed a crime. The scary thing is, where did the 14 year old learn this behavior? Was he abused himself or was he acting out something he saw on the internet?

Excuse you? Does someone have to have been abused to be guilty of this type of thing? Way to grossly insult all abuse survivors! :mad:

Edit: I wont delete this post like a coward, but I will apologise for the unnecessary outburst, its just relaly hurtful that there is a school of thought that people who were abused are more likely to become abusers. We'vr enough of an uphill struggle as it is trying to get on with our lives I think. Anyway, apologies for the tone and harshness of the post

Emme · 01-08-2013 10:07AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Excuse you? Does someone have to have been abused to be guilty of this type of thing? Way to grossly insult all abuse survivors! :mad:

Of course not, but a 14 year old who behaves in this way needs some form of counselling. I said there was a possibility of him suffering abuse himself or learning the behaviour from watching internet porn. There are a myriad of other possibilities as well. Surely this child needs help in the unlikely event of him having been abused himself. If so the sooner he gets help the better.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Edit: I wont delete this post like a coward, but I will apologise for the unnecessary outburst, its just relaly hurtful that there is a school of thought that people who were abused are more likely to become abusers. We'vr enough of an uphill struggle as it is trying to get on with our lives I think. Anyway, apologies for the tone and harshness of the post

Anyone can become an abuser. Abuse hurts and this means that possible victims of abuse need help as soon as possible. Even if the child wasn't abused he needs some form of intervention. At 14 he is too young to go to prison but everything must be done to ensure he doesn't abuse anybody else.

The Corinthian · 01-08-2013 04:29PM

Emme wrote: »

Who said all paedophiles or hebephiles are male?

You did; you decided to come up with a theory whereby one could seemingly identify pedophile tendencies through their preference in relationships and then cited only one gender, thus making that implication.

Please don't turn this into a gender debate.

I don't think you understand, I'm not turning this into a gender debate - this discussion is about the hysteria generated by the topic and I'm citing how ignorance is further feeding into it; creating idiotic pseudo-scientific theories (like the one you came out with), a heightened sense of paranoia and ultimately misplaced vigilantism which not only punishes the innocent, but ignores the guilty that are not targeted by such false profiling.

clairefontaine wrote: »

What vigilantism?

I've already given one example, would you like some more?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/848737.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/872436.stm

I could go on, but I think attempting to deny such vigilantism exists is a bit silly.

I just don't even know what to say about it, but it happens and it scares parents because it is so out of their control.

Out of the rest of your post, this bit is the only part that is even vaguely relevant to the present discussion, or the thread topic, for that matter.

Fear, however understandable, does not justify mob rule and hysteria.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Edit: I wont delete this post like a coward, but I will apologise for the unnecessary outburst, its just relaly hurtful that there is a school of thought that people who were abused are more likely to become abusers.

But this is my point here; such is the moral panic and hysteria that there appears to be a free-for-all whereby anyone with an opinion can act as judge on who is or not a 'potential' pedophile. Even when they clearly are clueless on the subject.

This culture of paranoia has caused endless harm.

Emme · 01-08-2013 05:25PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

This culture of paranoia has caused endless harm.

Maybe it has, but when the welfare of a child is concerned it is better to be safe than sorry. I don't agree with vigilantism, but any suspected incidents of child abuse should be thoroughly investigated in a rational manner. This includes schools and creches.

TheChizler · 01-08-2013 05:27PM

Emme wrote: »

Maybe it has, but when the welfare of a child is concerned it is better to be safe than sorry.

Surely panicking would generally make things LESS safe?

clairefontaine · 01-08-2013 05:46PM

There is no culture of paranoia. If there were surely the sex offenders wouldn't be so successful. Culture of denial.

The sex offenders cause the endless harm, not the innocent.

Upside down day again on boards.

The Corinthian · 01-08-2013 06:28PM

Emme wrote: »

Maybe it has, but when the welfare of a child is concerned it is better to be safe than sorry. I don't agree with vigilantism, but any suspected incidents of child abuse should be thoroughly investigated in a rational manner. This includes schools and creches.

I don't think you get it; when we get to the point when people start suspecting others because their wife looks young for her age (a completely bullshìt pseudo-scientific 'theory'), there's nothing rational about it. It's just loony-tunes.

And to what level is it better to be safe than sorry? Perhaps put all children under house arrest, home school them and let them out only after they hit 18? Or who's innocent rights would you like to trample over, just to be on the safe side?

clairefontaine wrote: »

There is no culture of paranoia. If there were surely the sex offenders wouldn't be so successful. Culture of denial.

Well, you've been given plenty of examples of this culture of paranoia - this entire thread has been on this very subject. If you'd prefer to still believe it doesn't exist, then I'm afraid it's you who's wallowing in that culture of denial.

clairefontaine · 01-08-2013 06:43PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think you get it; when we get to the point when people start suspecting others because their wife looks young for her age (a completely bullshìt pseudo-scientific 'theory'), there's nothing rational about it. It's just loony-tunes.

And to what level is it better to be safe than sorry? Perhaps put all children under house arrest, home school them and let them out only after they hit 18? Or who's innocent rights would you like to trample over, just to be on the safe side?

Well, you've been given plenty of examples of this culture of paranoia - this entire thread has been on this very subject. If you'd prefer to still believe it doesn't exist, then I'm afraid it's you who's wallowing in that culture of denial.

Ah yeah that's why sentencing is so haphazard. Really paranoid culture alright. That's why the government rprotected the names of the charged. That's why there has been no all,over accountability in Ireland, including the states complicity in the scandals. That's why there is no official sex offenders list where you can locate how many live in your area. Yeah real paranoia.

You gave two examples. You think two examples makes up a whole culture? Any examples in Ireland? Two swallows does not a summer make.

clairefontaine · 01-08-2013 06:50PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Excuse you? Does someone have to have been abused to be guilty of this type of thing? Way to grossly insult all abuse survivors! :mad:

Edit: I wont delete this post like a coward, but I will apologise for the unnecessary outburst, its just relaly hurtful that there is a school of thought that people who were abused are more likely to become abusers. We'vr enough of an uphill struggle as it is trying to get on with our lives I think. Anyway, apologies for the tone and harshness of the post

I think the idea is abuse breeds abuse.

So there is an idea the 14 year old did not come p with this on his own, that he saw it somewhere like on pornography or in life, or that he experienced it himself.

I don't know, I heard it on my local radio. He was arrested. Probably does need help, he's still young enough it might work, but I have no idea what will happen to him now.

And who knows what will happen to the seven year old boy. All I can say is that he and his parents must be traumatised.

bizmark · 01-08-2013 07:22PM

The two girls here are terrifying their paranoid ramblings and everything is justified if one child somewhere doesn't get looked at in a park mindset sums up nearly everything wrong with the culture of fear and paranoia surrounding this issue also sadly shows why there's essentially no male role models for kids now i recall when a old man talking to you was just an old man talking to you now it seems its a sex crime.

People like this would make it so everyone is a suspect everyone is automatically evil pulling nonsense like 1 in 4 of the population has been a "victim" always amazes me how that 1 in 4 number apply to rape victims domestic abuse victims pedo victims and god knows what else must be all the same guys doing it

Ah yeah that's why sentencing is so haphazard. Really paranoid culture alright. That's why the government rprotected the names of the charged. That's why there has been no all,over accountability in Ireland, including the states complicity in the scandals. That's why there is no official sex offenders list where you can locate how many live in your area. Yeah real paranoia

We should tar and feather anyone accused as well just to be extra special sure

clairefontaine · 01-08-2013 07:25PM

bizmark wrote: »

The two girls here are terrifying their paranoid ramblings and everything is justified if one child somewhere doesn't get looked at in a park mindset sums up nearly everything wrong with the culture of fear and paranoia surrounding this issue also sadly shows why there's essentially no male role models for kids now i recall when a old man talking to you was just an old man talking to you now it seems its a sex crime.

People like this would make it so everyone is a suspect everyone is automatically evil pulling nonsense like 1 in 4 of the population has been a "victim" always amazes me how that 1 in 4 number apply to rape victims domestic abuse victims pedo victims and god knows what else must be all the same guys doing it

We should tar and feather anyone accused as well just to be extra special sure

The American stats are one in four girls and one in six boys. I think the Irish ones are one in four but don't make a gender distinction, am open to correction.

I can't make any sense out of the rest of your post.

Emme · 02-08-2013 09:23AM

TheChizler wrote: »

Surely panicking would generally make things LESS safe?

See above.

Emme wrote: »

Maybe it has, but when the welfare of a child is concerned it is better to be safe than sorry. I don't agree with vigilantism, but any suspected incidents of child abuse should be thoroughly investigated in a rational manner. This includes schools and creches.

OldNotWIse · 02-08-2013 09:37AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think the idea is abuse breeds abuse.

So there is an idea the 14 year old did not come p with this on his own, that he saw it somewhere like on pornography or in life, or that he experienced it himself.

I don't know, I heard it on my local radio. He was arrested. Probably does need help, he's still young enough it might work, but I have no idea what will happen to him now.

And who knows what will happen to the seven year old boy. All I can say is that he and his parents must be traumatised.

Perhaps, but do you not see how that is grossly insulting to abuse survivors who are not abusers? Just because someone is abused will not make them an abuser, and we have enough of a mountain to climb trying to get over it and live normal happy lives without having generalisations casting a shadow over us.

Emme · 02-08-2013 09:42AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Perhaps, but do you not see how that is grossly insulting to abuse survivors who are not abusers? Just because someone is abused will not make them an abuser, and we have enough of a mountain to climb trying to get over it and live normal happy lives without having generalisations casting a shadow over us.

So what do we do? Leave juvenile abusers at large and don't counsel them or address their issues for fear of offending adults who suffered abuse? Thus continuing the conspiracy of silence which has perpetuated abuse since time immemorial.

OldNotWIse · 02-08-2013 09:55AM

Emme wrote: »

So what do we do? Leave juvenile abusers at large and don't counsel them or address their issues for fear of offending adults who suffered abuse? Thus continuing the conspiracy of silence which has perpetuated abuse since time immemorial.

As a survivor, I know better than anyone that silence is the worst thing. But perhaps you might exercise discretion, and avoid sweeping statements such as "abuse breeds abuse". I dont see how that would result in juvenile sex offenders having the run of the place tbh.

Emme · 02-08-2013 11:57AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

As a survivor, I know better than anyone that silence is the worst thing. But perhaps you might exercise discretion, and avoid sweeping statements such as "abuse breeds abuse". I dont see how that would result in juvenile sex offenders having the run of the place tbh.

I never said that abuse breeds abuse.

Asking the 14 year old abuser if he himself was abused among other questions isn't a slur on victims of abuse, it is a way of ensuring the juvenile offender gets treatment in the remote case of him being abused. He should not be excluded from treatment for possible abuse just because some victims of abuse consider it offensive that an abuser may have been abused himself. If the chances are even 0.0000000000001 he should still have the option of treatment and counseling.

I know people who are victims of abuse and this really blights their lives. There are days when nothing you say or do is right and this is part of the process some people go through. They suffer on an ongoing basis, they may be ok for a while then something happens and it's back to sqare one again. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy.

I don't want to inadvertently offend or upset anyone here so I am not going to post any more. All I will say is that everyone who is a possible victim of abuse deserves to be heard and deserves to be counselled and cared for.

clairefontaine · 02-08-2013 02:00PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Perhaps, but do you not see how that is grossly insulting to abuse survivors who are not abusers? Just because someone is abused will not make them an abuser, and we have enough of a mountain to climb trying to get over it and live normal happy lives without having generalisations casting a shadow over us.

It's not meant as a character assassination or that its a destiny. A users learn it from somewhere or someone. They pass it on.

Anyway I don't want offend anyone either, so I'm leaving the discussion.

OldNotWIse · 02-08-2013 02:06PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's not meant as a character assassination or that its a destiny. A users learn it from somewhere or someone. They pass it on.

Anyway I don't want offend anyone either, so I'm leaving the discussion.

I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on this actually. I certainly dont think my abuser "learned" it from someone - he's just sick in the head. Some people are just evil, but of course we humans have a need to always try to explain things (and not just in abuse scenarios) but as a way of distancing ourselves. You see it all the time - people witness a tragedy and they try to find something that was said/done by those involved as a means of distinguishing it and distancing themselves. We cannot accept that sometimes bad things just happen, and can happen to any of us. Similarly, some people are just evil. Not all bad acts can be explained away.

bizmark · 02-08-2013 02:53PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

The American stats are one in four girls and one in six boys. I think the Irish ones are one in four but don't make a gender distinction, am open to correction.

I can't make any sense out of the rest of your post.

to make it simple people who go way way over board on the prevention and protection angle are a bigger problem to a free society than the imaginary pedo/rapist/domestic abuser/racist behind every bush they strain really really hard to see

OldNotWIse · 02-08-2013 03:00PM

bizmark wrote: »

to make it simple people who go way way over board on the prevention and protection angle are a bigger problem to a free society than the imaginary pedo/rapist/domestic abuser/racist behind every bush they strain really really hard to see

How do you find the balance? Surely the scale should necessarily be tipped in favour of protecting our children?

I wish (as I am sure plenty of people do) that there had been a little bit more paranoia and straining to see when we were young and vulnerable!

clairefontaine · 03-08-2013 07:09PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on this actually. I certainly dont think my abuser "learned" it from someone - he's just sick in the head. Some people are just evil, but of course we humans have a need to always try to explain things (and not just in abuse scenarios) but as a way of distancing ourselves. You see it all the time - people witness a tragedy and they try to find something that was said/done by those involved as a means of distinguishing it and distancing themselves. We cannot accept that sometimes bad things just happen, and can happen to any of us. Similarly, some people are just evil. Not all bad acts can be explained away.

There is substantial research done on the cycle of violence.

Here is one immediately to hand

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15288865

This particular stat is about child violence. It claims that abused children are 74 times more likely to commit crimes against others and six times as likely to maltreat their own children.

It does not particularise sex crimes, but I will see if I can dig one up. I consider child sex assaults a violence against children, as do some researchers I have come across. The reading I have done has been in the three dimensional world of books though, not online, so I would need time to find some links.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/6/482.full
http://www.novabucks.org/childsexualabuse.html

Paedophiles are all around us!

Comments