The Paedophile Next Door

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 10:36PM

Studies I am sure you will cite for us. It would be interesting to see how they resolve the correlation-causation issue with those claims. Does substance abuse lead to paedophilia, or the other way around, or neither. I would not leap to such assumptions at all without good data, and a good methodology behind it.

Certainly if such a link were established then that would be great news, as treatment of the paedophilia of such people could be as simple as rehabilitation for their drug use. Right now however, I am not buying it.

Holsten · 02-12-2014 10:38PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

There is no known cure for paedophilia however there are treatments available to help reduce the urges paedophiles feel to sexually abuse children ......... the success rates of these treatments has been unfortunately very very low.

Behavioural treatment, relapse prevention and medication have all been tried with very limited success ............. castration (both physical and chemical) have achieved more success but only in cases where the driving factor for the paedophile was libido .......... it doesn't work when the paedophile is sadistic in nature and is driven by anger, the need to control, dominate and hurt a child sexually.

Although the cause of being born a paedophile is not yet known, studies of paedophiles have shown a link between a low IQ, personality disorders and a propensity for substance abuse suggesting paedophiles are born not bred ........

Please post the references of where you get this information

- People are born with an attraction to pre pubescent children.
- Low success rates of treatment
- These people have "urges" to abuse
- Limited success

I'd argue that whatever treatment/therapy offered is very effective since sexual offenders have the lowest rate of re-offense of any type of criminal bar murderers.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 10:46PM

Holsten wrote: »

Please post the references of where you get this information

- People are born with an attraction to pre pubescent children.
- Low success rates of treatment
- These people have "urges" to abuse
- Limited success

I'd argue that whatever treatment/therapy offered is very effective since sexual offenders have the lowest rate of re-offense of any type of criminal bar murderers.

It's interesting that you ask me specifically for references for my information ....... "I read it somewhere" as some posters say to validate their claims.

Dr. Fred Berlin of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic has done extensive research into paedophilia, it's causes and treatment .......... also I believe Michael Seto has published some studies.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 10:53PM

Holsten wrote: »

Please post the references of where you get this information

- People are born with an attraction to pre pubescent children.
- Low success rates of treatment
- These people have "urges" to abuse
- Limited success

I'd argue that whatever treatment/therapy offered is very effective since sexual offenders have the lowest rate of re-offense of any type of criminal bar murderers.

That's because once caught they are put on the Sex Offenders list and are forced to stay away from children ......... not because they have seen the errors of their ways

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 10:56PM

There is very little literature I am aware of linking paedophilia to drug abuse, hence my scepticism. Though searching the literature for this is quite difficult as most results using words like paedophilia and drugs leads to studies about the drug dependence of people who were abused BY paedophiles, but very little about paedophiles and their own drug relations.

In fact Chow 2002 a paper on paedophilia in women specifically notes that their correlation with psychiatric disorders and drug abuse is actually atypical when compared to men. So the literature I do find suggests the exact opposite of your claim. This fact about that paper was also noted by a blogger who was commenting on Pedophilia in general:

Many people assume that only males are pedophiles. However, case studies on pedophilia have demonstrated that female pedophilia does exist (Chow, 2002). Although this is a rare phenomenon, females who meet the DSM-IV criteria for pedophiles display similar cognitive distortions to that of males, such as irrational thoughts. Some differences, however, do exist among males and females. Females who exhibit paedophilia tend to suffer from psychiatric disorders or substance abuse problems. Also, there is a higher correlation between sexual abuses as a child with females compared to males.

However as I said I would be MASSIVELY wary of correlation errors in evaluating any such paper. Because the self loathing and depression that paedophiles report feeling are themselves a predictor of alcohol and substance abuse. So one needs a good data methodology to evaluate if one leads to the other or are they coincidental.

The simple truth is however that our knowledge is massively low on this and the number of study subjects equally low. We need more. Any time I discuss this issues with anyone familiar with the field I ask them a simple question. "Is our knowledge of this issue even far enough along that we can say with any confidence that these people LACK something we have or HAVE something we lack?" and so far even the answer to that appears to be a "No".

Your mention of Fred Berlin for example finds me no strong support of the link to mental disorders or drugs. In fact I find in an interview quite the opposite. He dismisses any common traits in offenders.

"Q. What are the common characteristics you see in sex abusers?
A. I don't think there are common features in terms of the personality or temperament or even the intelligence level of the individuals. What these people share in common is difficulty in dealing with their sexual needs in a healthy and constructive fashion. The only common feature has to do with the privacy of their sexual lives and how they manage that."

Q. Is there a relationship between sex abuse and alcohol and/or drug abuse?
A. Alcohol and drug abuse does not cause one to become involved sexually with a child. On the other hand, if one is already vulnerable because of an attraction to youngsters and then takes an intoxicating substance which will impair judgment and lower inhibitions, it's like throwing gasoline on a fire.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 11:02PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is very little literature I am aware of linking paedophilia to drug abuse, hence my scepticism. Though searching the literature for this is quite difficult as most results using words like paedophilia and drugs leads to studies about the drug dependence of people who were abused BY paedophiles, but very little about paedophiles and their own drug relations.

In fact Chow 2002 a paper on paedophilia in women specifically notes that their correlation with psychiatric disorders and drug abuse is actually atypical when compared to men. So the literature I do find suggests the exact opposite of your claim. This fact about that paper was also noted by a blogger who was commenting on Pedophilia in general:

However as I said I would be MASSIVELY wary of correlation errors in evaluating any such paper. Because the self loathing and depression that paedophiles report feeling are themselves a predictor of alcohol and substance abuse. So one needs a good data methodology to evaluate if one leads to the other or are they coincidental.

The simple truth is however that our knowledge is massively low on this and the number of study subjects equally low. We need more. Any time I discuss this issues with anyone familiar with the field I ask them a simple question. "Is our knowledge of this issue even far enough along that we can say with any confidence that these people LACK something we have or HAVE something we lack?" and so far even the answer to that appears to be a "No".

You referenced a "blogger" ........... I think you need to do a bit more research!!

Actual Doctors and Sexologists have done actual research/studies with actual paedophiles ........... I think they may be more informed than you or your blogger :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 11:03PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You referenced a "blogger" ........... I think you need to do a bit more research!!

No I referenced a paper. Directly.

I merely co-noted that my interpretation of that paper matches that of another reviewer. The qualifications of that reviewer are available if you wish however.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 11:10PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No I referenced a paper. Directly.

I merely co-noted that my interpretation of that paper matches that of another reviewer. The qualifications of that reviewer are available if you wish however.

That paper was a study of female paedophiles which, even according to the paper itself, is a very rare occurrence and quite different in nature and behaviour to the majority of paedophiles ......... the real problems, issues, studies and research lie with the male paedophile.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 11:17PM

Agreed and that is my point. This paper notes the exact opposite of your claim, which is that "low IQ, personality disorders and a propensity for substance abuse" are not at all that closely correlated at all.

Again to reference the interview with Fred Berlin, who you cited, on your comment about IQ for example:

Q. Do abusers fall into any one I.Q.-range?
A. No. Abuse can be perpetrated by people at any level of intelligence. They can have a spectrum of personalities from introverted to extroverted and anything in between. Their temperaments can be quite different in terms of whether or not they tend to have a short fuse or are very patient and docile.

So I am not seeing any citation that supports the contention, and the names you cited seem to be claiming the exact opposite of the position you have ascribed to them.

Which is, as I said, sad..... because if there was a strong link between.... say..... drug use and paedophilia then we would HAVE a treatment option available to us. We could treat the paedophilia by treating the substance abuses. Unfortunately we have very little link at all to support such an expectation.

Michael C. Seto who you also mentioned suggests 3% of males have this attraction, but in Seto 2005 and 2011 his only mention of drugs is not in relation to a cause of paedophilia but.... as one might expect.... incidents of abuse in that people already paedophiles will have their inhibitions negatively affected by drugs. Berlin notes the same thing in his interview and writings.

If at any point you come across the direct citations of the papers you think support a link to "low IQ, personality disorders and a propensity for substance abuse" then by all means let me know. Such a link would, as I said, by interesting and useful in dealing with the very topic of this thread: How to treat these people.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 11:41PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Agreed and that is my point. This paper notes the exact opposite of your claim, which is that "low IQ, personality disorders and a propensity for substance abuse" are not at all that closely correlated at all.

Again to reference the interview with Fred Berlin, who you cited, on your comment about IQ for example:

So I am not seeing any citation that supports the contention, and the names you cited seem to be claiming the exact opposite of the position you have ascribed to them.

Which is, as I said, sad..... because if there was a strong link between.... say..... drug use and paedophilia then we would HAVE a treatment option available to us. We could treat the paedophilia by treating the substance abuses. Unfortunately we have very little link at all to support such an expectation.

Michael C. Seto who you also mentioned suggests 3% of males have this attraction, but in Seto 2005 and 2011 his only mention of drugs is not in relation to a cause of paedophilia but.... as one might expect.... incidents of abuse in that people already paedophiles will have their inhibitions negatively affected by drugs. Berlin notes the same thing in his interview and writings.

If at any point you come across the direct citations of the papers you think support a link to "low IQ, personality disorders and a propensity for substance abuse" then by all means let me know. Such a link would, as I said, by interesting and useful in dealing with the very topic of this thread: How to treat these people.

http://sax.sagepub.com/content/19/3/285

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0894-4105.18.1.3

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.555

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12435259

nozzferrahhtoo · 03-12-2014 12:01AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

]http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0894-4105.18.1.3

I randomly selected your second link here as I have not the time this evening to do all 4 so I went with a random selection.

The paper confirms exactly the very words I used a few posts ago namely that "Also hampering any firm conclusions is that,
should a correlation between pedophilia and poorer general brain
function be verified, causality cannot be easily inferred." and it goes on to give reasons why.

One of the reasons given is one I had not even thought of myself which is that given the majority of our data set are convicted offenders.... rather than people who volunteer themselves..... the IQ issues are just as likely to be correlative to their inability to get away with it, rather than to their predilection to children in the first place.

Another issue less referenced in the paper of course is that IQ can relate to ability to control ones urges too, rather than to the urges themselves. Another conclusion equally valid but impossible to ascertain without a better data set and study group. It would be mere assumption to declare a link between low IQ and paedophilia for this reason without valid research on a control group of higher IQ pedophiles normalizing for their ability towards self control.

But like me, the paper warns against falling for correlation. It tells us "The causal association between cognitive capacity and pedophilic interest is only indirect, making correlations between them inherently small".

The paper also repeats another point I made in the thread which is that our main issue here is sample size and because of this it points out that conclusions remains tentative due to sample sizes.

So really this paper really does just support what I have been saying already. We need more paedophiles under the microscope, and we need them to be volunteers not apprehended offenders, and we need to be hyper aware of correlation-causation errors.

In fact the paper makes this quite explicit, agreeing AGAIN with things I already said in posts in this thread already. Such as how we can not assume a causal link between them, but "more plausible" is a root cause to both independantly. "More plausible is the third-variable model (lower diagram of Figure 1), where a perturbation occurs in early brain development and causes each of the characteristics measured here: lower cognitive capacity, decreased rates of right-handedness, and pedophilic interest"

I made a similar (identical) point about substance abuse which suggested you can not merely assume one X causes the other Y, but as with many correlation errors it is often much more plausible that X and Y have a common cause.

Good link, and a nice support for everything I have been saying thus far, so cheers for that. Though given how closely it matches my own views and statements so far on the thread, and supports them, I rather suspect I might have read this exact paper when it first came out, assimilated much of it, and then forgot I have read it.

floggg · 03-12-2014 10:38AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You have officially left the reservation!! You are implying that an adult being attracted to children is acceptable???? Wtf

Adult to adult attraction ........... acceptable.
Adult to child attraction .............unacceptable.

It is not, and cannot be, a question of acceptable or unacceptable, right or wrong etc.

That would imply that having this attractions was something we could judge by moral standards of some sort.

But any rational standard of morality would require the person make some sort of choice or exercise a reasonable degree of control over matters before their actions or circumstances can be judged on moral grounds.

Involuntary actions should never really be considered immoral though as you have no control over them.

Whether we like it or not, these attractions are involuntary and I'm sure many people with them would prefer not to have it. They can't help it though.

So we can't really say having these attractions are unacceptable - since they will remain whether we "accept" it or not.

What is however completely unacceptable is acting on these attractions. That, people do have control over and anybody who chooses to act on it as abhorrent and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

But unless and until they do (or attempt to), they do nothing wrong whatsoever.

floggg · 03-12-2014 10:41AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

So I should allow the paedophile in the same room as my children so he/she can leer at them ........... fantasise about them .......... "enjoy" their company ......... maybe your children, not mine!

Do you think if I met Rob Kearney I'd stand their leering at him and fantasising about him?

Have you ever met a hot woman who you were attracted to? Did you automatically leer inappropriately at her?

floggg · 03-12-2014 10:43AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Numerous times, even a couple of posts back ............ either you can't read his posts, didn't bother reading his posts or don't understand his posts ......... I think you, in particular, are in way over your head in this conversation.

Please point exactly where. Use quotes.

I've read all his posts. He never once said the interests of peadophiles should be put above children's or anything of the sort.

Ps - the personal petty sniping is rather pathetic, particularly given your failure to engage with the substance of most posts made and juvenile exchanges when dodging requests for substantiation.

I have a feeling they made you feel really good about yourself though, so I'm happy for you in that regard. Whatever gets you through your day.

sbsquarepants · 03-12-2014 03:07PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You do not know anyone as well as you think. They all have thoughts you do not know about. They simply do not, and would not, act on them. If such desires were revealed to me in the select people I mention, it would not affect the rest of the things I do know about them, and from which I draw my judgement, and which you nor anyone else know about given you do not know these people. My priorities are just fine.

If it wouldn't change your opinion of them, your priorities are not fine, not even close.
I understand the point your making, private thoughts are just that. There's no thought police, nor should there be and so on. But where exactly do you think actions come from? All actions begin as thoughts. I can honestly say I have never fantasised about anything that I categorically would not do. Why the fúck would I? Why would anyone?
If you're friend told you he was thinking of killing someone, killing himself or killing you for that matter, would you say, "ah well they're just thoughts" or would you be concerned that he might actually do it? If someone tells you they are sexually attracted to your kids - you need to keep them away from your kids no matter who they are or what they have done for you in the past - how is that not plainly obvious?

Eamondomc · 03-12-2014 04:51PM

drumswan wrote: »

Do you think everyone who is attracted to another person is likely to rape them? Im attracted to supermodels, doesnt mean Im going to force myself on Elle McPherson, that would be rather inappropriate. How do you propose to deal with things when your offspring are sexually mature and normal people are attracted to them? Are you going to treat everyone as a potential rapist then? Im not sure youve thought his through.

looking_around wrote: »

Paedophiles, don't necessariliy have urges to rape.
They have an attraction, that can't be consented to. A bit like, if you can imagine this, having an attraction to redheads, but not having any consent to you, doesn't mean you're going to start raping them.

And your post above this one.
You're assumption is that clearly, all paedophiles are abusers. Just because a paedophiles is attracted to some kid, does not mean, they'll act on it.

floggg wrote: »

I'm attracted to Rob Kearney. Knowing he's straight and out of my league, I know he would never consent.

That doesn't stop me fantasising about him.

I don't consider myself to want to rape him though.

There is a thought process here that is flawed a wee bit I d say. How many of you know a paedophile? If you do know one and you leave them alone with your children then you are doing them no favours and are only trying either to test them or tease them or pretending you are "cool" . But really you are putting your children at risk and if you do not recognise this then you are wrong IMO.

Piliger · 03-12-2014 07:04PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

That paper was a study of female paedophiles which, even according to the paper itself, is a very rare occurrence and quite different in nature and behaviour to the majority of paedophiles ......... the real problems, issues, studies and research lie with the male paedophile.

Evidence that females are rare is highly dubious and seriously doubtful.

MadDog76 · 03-12-2014 07:05PM

floggg wrote: »

It is not, and cannot be, a question of acceptable or unacceptable, right or wrong etc.

That would imply that having this attractions was something we could judge by moral standards of some sort.

But any rational standard of morality would require the person make some sort of choice or exercise a reasonable degree of control over matters before their actions or circumstances can be judged on moral grounds.

Involuntary actions should never really be considered immoral though as you have no control over them.

Whether we like it or not, these attractions are involuntary and I'm sure many people with them would prefer not to have it. They can't help it though.

So we can't really say having these attractions are unacceptable - since they will remain whether we "accept" it or not.

What is however completely unacceptable is acting on these attractions. That, people do have control over and anybody who chooses to act on it as abhorrent and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

But unless and until they do (or attempt to), they do nothing wrong whatsoever.

An adult being attracted to a small child is acceptable in your warped twisted opinion???

I'm afraid you have nothing more to add to this conversation ..........

Piliger · 03-12-2014 07:06PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You referenced a "blogger" ........... I think you need to do a bit more research!!

Actual Doctors and Sexologists have done actual research/studies with actual paedophiles ........... I think they may be more informed than you or your blogger :rolleyes:

What you will find it that almost all research has been limited to criminal paedophiles only. That is like studying male sexuality by only studying male rapists.

MadDog76 · 03-12-2014 07:07PM

Piliger wrote: »

Evidence that females are rare is highly dubious and seriously doubtful.

Really??
What is the ratio between female paedophiles and male paedophiles percentage-wise so??

MadDog76 · 03-12-2014 07:08PM

Piliger wrote: »

What you will find it that almost all research has been limited to criminal paedophiles only. That is like studying male sexuality by only studying male rapists.

Criminal paedophiles ............ is there another kind?

Piliger · 03-12-2014 07:09PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

An adult being attracted to a small child is acceptable in your warped twisted opinion???

I'm afraid you have nothing more to add to this conversation ..........

I find your own irrational dogma about what people should be allowed think inside their heads and what attracts them or repulses them rather twisted myself, and your contribution to the conversation hardly merits you having any say over whether floggg has more to add of value or not.

Piliger · 03-12-2014 07:10PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Criminal paedophiles ............ is there another kind?

So you think that every person attracted to children acts on that attraction ? Really ?

MadDog76 · 03-12-2014 07:11PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I randomly selected your second link here as I have not the time this evening to do all 4 so I went with a random selection.

The paper confirms exactly the very words I used a few posts ago namely that "Also hampering any firm conclusions is that,
should a correlation between pedophilia and poorer general brain
function be verified, causality cannot be easily inferred." and it goes on to give reasons why.

One of the reasons given is one I had not even thought of myself which is that given the majority of our data set are convicted offenders.... rather than people who volunteer themselves..... the IQ issues are just as likely to be correlative to their inability to get away with it, rather than to their predilection to children in the first place.

Another issue less referenced in the paper of course is that IQ can relate to ability to control ones urges too, rather than to the urges themselves. Another conclusion equally valid but impossible to ascertain without a better data set and study group. It would be mere assumption to declare a link between low IQ and paedophilia for this reason without valid research on a control group of higher IQ pedophiles normalizing for their ability towards self control.

But like me, the paper warns against falling for correlation. It tells us "The causal association between cognitive capacity and pedophilic interest is only indirect, making correlations between them inherently small".

The paper also repeats another point I made in the thread which is that our main issue here is sample size and because of this it points out that conclusions remains tentative due to sample sizes.

So really this paper really does just support what I have been saying already. We need more paedophiles under the microscope, and we need them to be volunteers not apprehended offenders, and we need to be hyper aware of correlation-causation errors.

In fact the paper makes this quite explicit, agreeing AGAIN with things I already said in posts in this thread already. Such as how we can not assume a causal link between them, but "more plausible" is a root cause to both independantly. "More plausible is the third-variable model (lower diagram of Figure 1), where a perturbation occurs in early brain development and causes each of the characteristics measured here: lower cognitive capacity, decreased rates of right-handedness, and pedophilic interest"

I made a similar (identical) point about substance abuse which suggested you can not merely assume one X causes the other Y, but as with many correlation errors it is often much more plausible that X and Y have a common cause.

Good link, and a nice support for everything I have been saying thus far, so cheers for that. Though given how closely it matches my own views and statements so far on the thread, and supports them, I rather suspect I might have read this exact paper when it first came out, assimilated much of it, and then forgot I have read it.

Eh .......... you must have read a different paper to the one I did so!!

Piliger · 03-12-2014 07:11PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Really??
What is the ratio between female paedophiles and male paedophiles percentage-wise so??

There seems to be no real evidence available that this is known. Not even close. Mainly because of how society treats them and thinks about them.

MadDog76 · 03-12-2014 07:14PM

Piliger wrote: »

I find your own irrational dogma about what people should be allowed think inside their heads and what attracts them or repulses them rather twisted myself, and your contribution to the conversation hardly merits you having any say over whether floggg has more to add of value or not.

My apologies ......... I meant to say in my opinion he has nothing more substantial to add to this conversation .......... he may (and probably will :rolleyes:) post some more on this thread but it will be nothing of any value.

He believes adults being attracted to small children is acceptable ffs!!!

MadDog76 · 03-12-2014 07:15PM

Piliger wrote: »

So you think that every person attracted to children acts on that attraction ? Really ?

In some form or another yes ............

MadDog76 · 03-12-2014 07:18PM

Piliger wrote: »

Evidence that females are rare is highly dubious and seriously doubtful.

Piliger wrote: »

There seems to be no real evidence available that this is known. Not even close. Mainly because of how society treats them and thinks about them.

So what evidence were you referring to earlier when you stated that paedophiles are commonly female???

Piliger · 03-12-2014 07:29PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

So what evidence were you referring to earlier when you stated that paedophiles are commonly female???

Where ?

Piliger · 03-12-2014 07:29PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

My apologies ......... I meant to say in my opinion he has nothing more substantial to add to this conversation .......... he may (and probably will :rolleyes:) post some more on this thread but it will be nothing of any value.

He believes adults being attracted to small children is acceptable ffs!!!

I have read no such claim by him. But then your idea of what 'acceptable' means is very very confusing.

The Paedophile Next Door

Comments