The Paedophile Next Door

looking_around · 29-11-2014 12:53PM

I find by misusing paedophilia, all it does is assert that all paedophiles are child abusers.

If people mean to say child abuse, that's what they should say. Paedophilia used incorrectly for abuse can be seen throughout this thread. I don't think it helps with understand exactly what paedophilia is, nor who an abuser is.
An abuser may not be a paedophile and vice-versa.
____

on the age of consent, that's where a Juliet's law would help. It would make having sex with eachother legal, instead of immediately labelling the boy a sex offender.

Eamondomc · 29-11-2014 12:55PM

looking_around wrote: »

technically, if 'loving' and not for a power trip, it would be.

What you mean to say is that sex with juveniles isn't always seen as child abuse.

Yes thats it in a nutshell. I am not saying I agree in total with it but can accept it as being legal. Being attracted to children is not necessarily the only reason for paedophillic actions.

Grayson wrote: »

I think that's what he means but i think he also means that it's not always paedophillia either. Those marriages took place out of necessity/duty/loads a reasons. but an attraction to children probably wasn't one of the reasons.

Really though, it's all down to semantics. I'm pretty certain we generally understand what everyone is saying, it's just phrasing it to make sure there's no misunderstandings.

For example if i say that historically there was no difference between a post pubescent 15 year old girl and an 18 year old girl, I'm not condoning having sex with a 15 year old. I'm just saying that at that point in time there was very little practical difference.

Personally i think a 17 year old limit is both too young and too old. A lot of teenagers could manage to have sex responsibly (with each other). But as a society we grow up a lot later than we used to. An 18 year old now has less responsibility than a 15 year old did 100 years ago, or than a 13 year old 1000 years ago. Age of consent is based partly on the physical maturity of the body but it's also based on the maturity of the person. That is, are they able to handle sex? Whereas puberty is now occurring earlier than ever, teenagers are growing up slower than ever. We have a situation were 14 year olds are physically mature enough to have sex but 18 year olds aren't mentally mature enough.

More or less what I was getting at

Shep_Dog · 30-11-2014 11:47AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Paedophilia is not a sexual preference ......... it's something you are born with and cannot be changed ....... just like homosexuality.

Or, it's a behavioural trait developed during childhood/adolescence as a result of maternal emotional abuse.

From what I've read online, I generally find that law-enforcement types generally prefer the 'born with/cannot be cured' argument as it is generally followed by a demand for more police and resources to monitor such people forever.

The idea that paedophila can be attributed to wrong-doing by mothers (perhaps who themselves were abused), which perverted normal emotlonal/sexual development is one which is likely to be difficult for women to accept as its much easier to believe that paedophiles are monstrous random freaks of nature.

looking_around · 30-11-2014 12:33PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Or, it's a behavioural trait developed during childhood/adolescence as a result of maternal emotional abuse.

From what I've read online, I generally find that law-enforcement types generally prefer the 'born with/cannot be cured' argument as it is generally followed by a demand for more police and resources to monitor such people forever.

The idea that paedophila can be attributed to wrong-doing by mothers (perhaps who themselves were abused), which perverted normal emotlonal/sexual development is one which is likely to be difficult for women to accept as its much easier to believe that paedophiles are monstrous random freaks of nature.

You spout this off as fact, with no references links (to studies preferably) to back it up.

lanos · 30-11-2014 01:17PM

Can I offer a simple solution
Chemical castration for those who seek help.
Physical castration for those who get caught.

Shep_Dog · 30-11-2014 06:21PM

looking_around wrote: »

You spout this off as fact, with no references links (to studies preferably) to back it up.

Your response appears hostile. Do the reasoned opinions I expressed challenge your beliefs?

The theory of paedophilia being associtaed with emotional abuse such as is manifested in poor parental attachment is well known. Try

(http://) muir.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/10994/33/Thesis_Sarah%20James.pdf?sequence=1

This paper discusses it (and other competing theories) and provides sources.

....Other studies run parallel to these findings, many stating that child molesters are more likely to be insecurely attached than other sexual offenders and non-offenders (e.g.Craissati et al., 2002; Hudson & Ward, 2000). These studies provide support for the theory that a pedophile’s lack of parental warmth or attachment can be an important factor in why they developed pedophilia and why they are unable to form age-appropriate relationships

Put simply, if a child grows up fearful of its mother, what kind of relationship will he develop with adult women (or any adult) in the future?

looking_around · 30-11-2014 06:47PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Your response appears hostile. Do the reasoned opinions I expressed challenge your beliefs?

The theory of paedophilia being associtaed with emotional abuse such as is manifested in poor parental attachment is well known. Try

(http://) muir.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/10994/33/Thesis_Sarah%20James.pdf?sequence=1

This paper discusses it (and other competing theories) and provides sources.

Put simply, if a child grows up fearful of its mother, what kind of relationship will he develop with adult women (or any adult) in the future?

My issue is with you focus on mother and not PARENT.
The study makes claim of "parental attachment". ie either mother or father.
And that, I can see as possibility, but to blame it on one gender? That takes from a fathers role/influence in raising their child.

ceadaoin. · 30-11-2014 06:48PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Your response appears hostile. Do the reasoned opinions I expressed challenge your beliefs?

The theory of paedophilia being associtaed with emotional abuse such as is manifested in poor parental attachment is well known. Try

(http://) muir.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/10994/33/Thesis_Sarah%20James.pdf?sequence=1

This paper discusses it (and other competing theories) and provides sources.

Put simply, if a child grows up fearful of its mother, what kind of relationship will he develop with adult women (or any adult) in the future?

So women are to blame for paedophilia now :rolleyes:

The quote you posted says parental attachment, not specifically maternal btw.

Eamondomc · 30-11-2014 07:03PM

lanos wrote: »

Can I offer a simple solution
Chemical castration for those who seek help.
Physical castration for those who get caught.

Thats like cutting off hands for theft and the death penalty for murder and then if thats right for paedophiles then it must be right for all sex offenders.
Its not really a solution its sort of like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone. There must be some way found to help those in need of help and rehabilitate those who offend. That may be psychiatric help, I dont know but as a society the problems must be recognised and some way found to humanely deal with these people.

Shep_Dog · 30-11-2014 07:09PM

looking_around wrote: »

My issue is with you focus on mother and not PARENT.
The study makes claim of "parental attachment". ie either mother or father.
And that, I can see as possibility, but to blame it on one gender? That takes from a fathers role/influence in raising their child.

But what if it is the mother who is at fault?

The mother is primary care-giver and hugely influences the male child's relationship to women in the future.

There are of course many theories about paedophilia and it may well be that there is more than one cause. This, I suggest is one that deserves thought and consideration.

looking_around · 30-11-2014 07:17PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

But what if it is the mother who is at fault?

The mother is primary care-giver and hugely influences the male child's relationship to women in the future.

There are of course many theories about paedophilia and it may well be that there is more than one cause. This, I suggest is one that deserves thought and consideration.

I would imagine, that it would depend on the paedophile and his/her childhood.

You can't emphasise the mothers relationship witht heir child, when a father has equal influences.

Infact (and not to take this off topic.) doing so, is like saying 2 gay men can't raise a child because the mother is the "primary care-giver".

It's not true anymore.
In some families the father is the primary care giver, in many, it's shared equally.

So please keep your theory to "parental influence". If a child is neglected, and more so if they feel that neglect, they develop problems.
This isn't a new thing, nor something specific to paedophilia.

Shep_Dog · 30-11-2014 07:25PM

looking_around wrote: »

You can't emphasise the mothers relationship witht heir child, when a father has equal influences.

And when they don't have equal influences?

looking_around · 30-11-2014 07:29PM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

And when they don't have equal influences?

Then it's either one parent or the others, and depends on the paedophile in question.

your posts make it sound like it's always the mothers fault.
__
and I'm not feeding you anymore, I think you're baiting.

Shep_Dog · 30-11-2014 07:39PM

looking_around wrote: »

your posts make it sound like it's always the mothers fault.

Do carefully read what I posted:

I acknowledged that there could be many causes and explored the idea of maternal emotional abuse being one of them. It's certainly not going to be a popular theory.

I think this idea caused you such distress that you were unable read what was written and consider the idea in a rational manner. I would ask you to please try again once you've calmed down.

looking_around · 30-11-2014 07:43PM

this is what you said "Or, it's a behavioural trait developed during childhood/adolescence as a result of maternal emotional abuse."

When you should have correctly said "Or, it's a behavioural trait developed during childhood/adolescence as a result of parental emotional abuse."

You chose to use mother as bait. and admittedly it worked. but goodbye.

MadDog76 · 01-12-2014 12:53AM

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Or, it's a behavioural trait developed during childhood/adolescence as a result of maternal emotional abuse.

From what I've read online, I generally find that law-enforcement types generally prefer the 'born with/cannot be cured' argument as it is generally followed by a demand for more police and resources to monitor such people forever.

The idea that paedophila can be attributed to wrong-doing by mothers (perhaps who themselves were abused), which perverted normal emotlonal/sexual development is one which is likely to be difficult for women to accept as its much easier to believe that paedophiles are monstrous random freaks of nature.

That's the problem these days ......... nothing's ever black & white, there always has to be a grey area full nonsense ........... it's not the mothers fault, paedophiles are simply born with an incurable genetic disorder.

lanos · 01-12-2014 11:01AM

lanos wrote: »

Can I offer a simple solution
Chemical castration for those who seek help.
Physical castration for those who get caught.

Eamondomc wrote: »

Thats like cutting off hands for theft and the death penalty for murder and then if thats right for paedophiles then it must be right for all sex offenders.
Its not really a solution its sort of like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone. There must be some way found to help those in need of help and rehabilitate those who offend. That may be psychiatric help, I dont know but as a society the problems must be recognised and some way found to humanely deal with these people.

no thats a flawed analogy
your analogy suggests different levels of punishment
my idea suggested treatment for those that seek help
because chemical castration is not invasive or permanent.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-12-2014 11:05AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

The problem I have with you and your posts (yes I've read them) is that you would trust someone with your children who has confessed to you that they are a paedophile

Again not what I said yet your misrepresentation and ad hominem abound. I said there are people I trust implicitly with my children, and if THOSE particular people turned out to have such an attraction then I would not change mz opinion of the safety of my children. That is not quite the same thing, at all, as you are attempting to paint it to be.

MadDog76 wrote: »

.............. there's no getting around that fact no matter how long you make your posts in order to justify your logic.

And your irrelevant ad hominem commentary continues. Anytime you are ready to address the things I have _actually_ said however, I am here for you. But throw away comments about the length of peoples post is just a way to dodge actually replying to a thing they say.

MadDog76 wrote: »

You have a habit of ignoring certain parts of my posts in order to justify and validate your own posts

Irony. Meter. Exploding. Does. Not compute.

You at this point are the last person to admonish ANYONE on this point.

Or is it one rule for you and one for everyone else? Is that how it works now?

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm saying that the fact that some people fantasise about having sex, ie raping, children separates them from other "normal", albeit kinky, fantasies ........

Some people fantasize about raping others or being themselves raped. Some people imagine killing their boss in obscene and painful ways. Do you obsess over what goes on in peoples head often? I do not. I realize that there is a difference between what happens in peoples head, and what they actually intend on acting out or engaging in. Are you so short of things to worry about that you need to worry about trivialities than will not actually affect the world in any measurable way?

Eamondomc · 01-12-2014 11:10AM

lanos wrote: »

no thats a flawed analogy
your analogy suggests different levels of punishment
my idea suggested treatment for those that seek help
because chemical castration is not invasive or permanent.

The last line of your original quote is hardly reversible now.

lanos · 01-12-2014 01:04PM

Eamondomc wrote: »

The last line of your original quote is hardly reversible now.

and i never said it was
but you still provided a rubbish analogy

in fact go back and re-read my original post and then i will permit you to do a face palm

sbsquarepants · 01-12-2014 01:52PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Do you not think a parent should take the "extreme risk free option" when it comes to their own children's safety???

I think you can do more harm than good being overprotective sometimes. Not necessarily in this case mind, just in general! We all know ridiculously molly coddled and cotton wool wrapped kids, they invariably grow up to be less than capable adults.

Grayson wrote: »

Personally i think a 17 year old limit is both too young and too old. A lot of teenagers could manage to have sex responsibly (with each other). But as a society we grow up a lot later than we used to. An 18 year old now has less responsibility than a 15 year old did 100 years ago, or than a 13 year old 1000 years ago. Age of consent is based partly on the physical maturity of the body but it's also based on the maturity of the person. That is, are they able to handle sex? Whereas puberty is now occurring earlier than ever, teenagers are growing up slower than ever. We have a situation were 14 year olds are physically mature enough to have sex but 18 year olds aren't mentally mature enough.

It's one of the paradoxes of modern life. Kids are being sexualised etc from an early age, with the internet that is only going to get younger and younger I think - but due to modern affluence they are actually maturing (as in thinking like adults, responsibilities and repercussions and so on) later and later. Most 18 year olds these days would be entirely incapable of standing on their own two feet.

lanos wrote: »

Can I offer a simple solution
Chemical castration for those who seek help.
Physical castration for those who get caught.

Great solution, there'll be ques around the block to take it up no doubt.

Shep_Dog wrote: »

From what I've read online, I generally find that law-enforcement types generally prefer the 'born with/cannot be cured' argument as it is generally followed by a demand for more police and resources to monitor such people forever.

I generally find that law enforcement types can not really be trusted to rationalise anything whatsoever. Laws for the sake of laws is basically their mentality.

Eamondomc · 01-12-2014 07:22PM

lanos wrote: »

no thats a flawed analogy
your analogy suggests different levels of punishment
my idea suggested treatment for those that seek help
because chemical castration is not invasive or permanent.

Your original post called for "physical castration for those who get caught".
Is that your idea of treatment? I d say my analogy was pretty good.
When you have a suggestion within the law come back to me. Have a nice day now.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 01:18AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again not what I said yet your misrepresentation and ad hominem abound. I said there are people I trust implicitly with my children, and if THOSE particular people turned out to have such an attraction then I would not change mz opinion of the safety of my children. That is not quite the same thing, at all, as you are attempting to paint it to be.

And your irrelevant ad hominem commentary continues. Anytime you are ready to address the things I have _actually_ said however, I am here for you. But throw away comments about the length of peoples post is just a way to dodge actually replying to a thing they say.

Irony. Meter. Exploding. Does. Not compute.

You at this point are the last person to admonish ANYONE on this point.

Or is it one rule for you and one for everyone else? Is that how it works now?

Some people fantasize about raping others or being themselves raped. Some people imagine killing their boss in obscene and painful ways. Do you obsess over what goes on in peoples head often? I do not. I realize that there is a difference between what happens in peoples head, and what they actually intend on acting out or engaging in. Are you so short of things to worry about that you need to worry about trivialities than will not actually affect the world in any measurable way?

Ok let me put it this way since you misunderstood me ........... I cannot except the fact that someone who is close to you and you trust implicitly already for x amount of years who then confesses to you that he/she has sexual thoughts about children is still someone you would continue to trust around your children alone ......... I find that fact repugnant, irresponsible and neglectful.

Don't worry about your paedophile mate's feelings being hurt .......... worry about your children, it's your job as a parent.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 08:52AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ok let me put it this way since you misunderstood me ...........

Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you. I understand you just fine. I just think what you are saying and.... more specifically.... trying to imply about me and my position are simply tosh and nonsense.

MadDog76 wrote: »

is still someone you would continue to trust around your children alone ......... I find that fact repugnant, irresponsible and neglectful.

Except it is none of those things because the basis for my trust in that select few people are so large, that I simply have ZERO expectation that their thoughts would be anything _but_ thoughts.

As I keep pointing out, though you ignore this in favor of making it about me personally rather than any of the actual on topic points I have made, Attraction does not equate to action, and desire does not equate to intent.

looking_around · 02-12-2014 01:01PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you. I understand you just fine. I just think what you are saying and.... more specifically.... trying to imply about me and my position are simply tosh and nonsense.

Except it is none of those things because the basis for my trust in that select few people are so large, that I simply have ZERO expectation that their thoughts would be anything _but_ thoughts.

As I keep pointing out, though you ignore this in favor of making it about me personally rather than any of the actual on topic points I have made, Attraction does not equate to action, and desire does not equate to intent.

another thing important to mention, is a paedophile isn't attracted to every child. So there's no reason to assume, unless they say so, that they are specifically attracted to your children.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 01:15PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you. I understand you just fine. I just think what you are saying and.... more specifically.... trying to imply about me and my position are simply tosh and nonsense.

Except it is none of those things because the basis for my trust in that select few people are so large, that I simply have ZERO expectation that their thoughts would be anything _but_ thoughts.

As I keep pointing out, though you ignore this in favor of making it about me personally rather than any of the actual on topic points I have made, Attraction does not equate to action, and desire does not equate to intent.

looking_around wrote: »

another thing important to mention, is a paedophile isn't attracted to every child. So there's no reason to assume, unless they say so, that they are specifically attracted to your children.

Is it worth taking that risk when it comes to your children???
You both would say yes .............. I, like most parents, would say definitely not!!!

looking_around · 02-12-2014 01:18PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Is it worth taking that risk when it comes to your children???
You both would say yes .............. I, like most parents, would say definitely not!!!

I wouldn't see it as a risk.

The same way I wouldn't be afraid of being around every male.
(as a woman every male is a potential rapist....using your line of thinking)

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 01:29PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Is it worth taking that risk when it comes to your children???

I am not sure how to keep telling you the same thing, to deflect you from your campaign of making this about me while ignoring the substance of my posts in, for example, the long post you simply dodged behind a personal ad hominem comment about me.

But for the people I am speaking of, I do not even SEE it as a risk. Because as I keep telling you !everything! I know of them tells me that if they did have such attractions they simply are not the people who would act on them at all, let alone against my children.

You might as well ask me if I trust my partner alone with other men for no other reason than I know they personally find her attractive.

It is clearly your entire rhetoric is based on conflating attraction with action, and desire with intent in some kind of 1:1 ratio. As has been said, on that basis all males are likely rapists too. Because they are attracted to women they can not be trusted alone with them.

sbsquarepants · 02-12-2014 03:10PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except it is none of those things because the basis for my trust in that select few people are so large, that I simply have ZERO expectation that their thoughts would be anything _but_ thoughts.

If I knew someone for x amount of years and they out of the blue dropped a bombshell on me like that - my immediate reaction would be to realise I didn't know them as well as I thought I did and rapidly reassess their relationship to me.
If my best mate says to me tomorrow I often think about raping your kids while I'm **** - My reaction would not be T.M.I you little scamp you, sure thinking is harmless and we all think of something, he'd be getting a box in the jaw and a warning to never show his face near me or my kids again.
If an admission like that wouldn't lead you to question how well you actually know the person, wouldn't have you question their place in your life, and you would in fact let him babysit that very night as if he'd casually said "that blondie one off countdown's a bit of alright isn't she" then you really need to take a cold hard look at your priorites, cos that is fúcked up!

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 03:21PM

looking_around wrote: »

another thing important to mention, is a paedophile isn't attracted to every child. So there's no reason to assume, unless they say so, that they are specifically attracted to your children.

Oh that's ok then isn't it .............. as long as the paedophile isn't abusing his children we'll just leave him be shall we :rolleyes:

The Paedophile Next Door

Comments