The Paedophile Next Door

MadDog76 · 03-12-2014 08:13PM

Piliger wrote: »

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

Piliger wrote: »

Where ?

:rolleyes:

MadDog76 · 03-12-2014 08:14PM

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.

Piliger wrote: »

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

I'm starting to doubt your ability to read .......... *sigh* ......... see above

Piliger · 03-12-2014 09:23PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Thanks for admitting that I never said it. No worries.

Piliger · 03-12-2014 09:26PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm starting to doubt your ability to read .......... *sigh* ......... see above

Firstly, please note that some of us have other things in our lives and cannot read every single post every time.

While saying that I find it 'interesting' to read the very first line in the quote that you posted.

nozzferrahhtoo · 03-12-2014 10:03PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If it wouldn't change your opinion of them, your priorities are not fine, not even close.

Never said I wouldn't. If a data set changes I always change my conclusions related to that data set. Many opinions would change. I would re-evaluate the safety of me and mine. And for 2 people in particular, If they expressed an attraction (rather than a desire to rape or hurt), my overall evaluation of the safety of me and mine would remain functionally similar.

However this thread is not about me as a mod made clear we should be on topic, so I mention the above to make the on topic point that if we are to decide how to treat these people, the first thing we have to do is separate attraction and action, desire and intent, because they are entirely different things and the treatment of such people will entirely depend on which they are.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I can honestly say I have never fantasised about anything that I categorically would not do.

I have. Many people have. Finding slow and painful ways to off your boss tends to be a favourite.There is about three people in my work place I have thought about hitting square on the nose too. I never intend to do it, nor would I. Everything about what makes me ME simply precludes me ever even remotely actually acting on such thoughts.

And this too is an avenue into answering the question that is on topic, and not about me. I already mentioned the preliminary positive results we have had from non-real porn with these people. Separating thought and intent, and curbing intent by working with thought, is a promising area of progress here which I hope they find ethical ways to explore.

nozzferrahhtoo · 03-12-2014 10:06PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

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

Clearly there is. The ones that never have committed a crime against anyone are no criminals. The ones who have are.

And to treat pedophilia and understand it, what we need is a data set not solely based on convicts. We need open discourse and evaluation and study of ALL pedophile types. Without this I hold little hope of ever creating useful treatment plans.

Convicting them of thought crime is a move which is never going to allow us to treat them or find a way to treat them which is what the thread is about.

MadDog76 wrote: »

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

Did I quote something that was not in the paper? Did I interpret something in particular wrong? Given you replied to not one shred of my response to the paper, I can do little to nothing with your blanket dismissal here.

MadDog76 wrote: »

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

More accurately my position is that I think that whatever goes on in the privacy of ones brain is entirely their business and no one elses, and is simply irrelevant to me in any way unless they come to us seeking help, in which case I feel we should offer it. And that is what the thread is about. How to treat them.

So my position is not that it is acceptable OR unacceptable. My position is that what goes on in peoples heads is _irrelevant_ unless they seek help, perpetuate a crime, or their thoughts are useful data to us in formulating a cure or treatment for them.... which is what the thread is about.

nozzferrahhtoo · 03-12-2014 10:08PM

Piliger wrote: »

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

I think the papers in question were implying RELATIVELY rare rather than simply RARE. And that is not dubious at all I fear. Compared to the number of male pedophiles I would say that female ones are indeed comparatively rare.

But really as you point out yourself the kinds of figures we have to go on with this are poor as most of our knowledge comes from convicted abusers. And there is not only the issue that females are rarer in this, but convictions of them likely are too. Especially given many of the types of abuse from females might not be.... for want of a prettier way of putting it.... as forensically detectable as that from males.

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.

Very true. And the studies linked to so far here mention this too. And I have mentioned it numerous times. Until we foster an environment where non-abusing pedophiles come forward and we add them to the data set, our data set is painfully incomplete.

We see around us innumerable non-abusing males with attractions to females. So that is the "norm" or that attraction we know. We do not judge male sexual interest in females solely by judgement of convicted rapists and abusers. If we did we would never leave ANY male alone with a woman.

The same is not true for pedophiles. The entire sample set people have to draw their impressions from IS the convicted rapists and abusers. The over all public impression of such people is therefore going to be sculpted by this.

But for every rapist and abuser of children, how many people have the attraction but do not act and never would? 1:1? 1:100? 1:10,000? We simply do not know. We simply do not have the data.

But given the estimates from the linked studies on how many people are pedophiles (one name mentioned by MadDog has even estimated upwards of 400million in the world) compared to the number of convictions we have for it, I do not think the ratio likely to be small.

Piliger · 03-12-2014 10:26PM

Two excellent posts nozzferrahhtoo, though your last statement begs the comment to be made yet again that the community of studies across the world in this area are widely accepted to be both limited, biased and inadequate. Either they are limited, as we agree, to the criminal and the caught kind, or are carried out by groups with an agenda that makes their reports almost worthless. This especially applies to female paedophiles. I wish I could remember where I saw it but about two years ago I saw a report from some survey (And YES all surveys should be taken with a shovel of salt !) where abuse my mothers of their children and children in their care came out higher than child abuse my men. But this is politically incorrect poison these days and is ignored thoroughly by the media.

We are going through a period when the media are exploiting paedophilia for all it is worth and every red cent they can screw out of it, and the resulting hysteria has created an atmosphere where the public has little patience with people wanting to study this phenomena.

Until that changes, I cannot see much progress being made in the area. Meanwhile we have a thought police ranting and raving with their own brand of hysteria.

nozzferrahhtoo · 03-12-2014 11:27PM

I would genuinely like to read the results and the study if you ever remember it and find it again!

That second point is a point I have not made on the thread myself but is one I probably should have indeed. The current media frenzy about paedophilia in general, fueled by everything from the crimes of Christian churches coming to light, to the outing of Television personalities and celebrities, means constructive discourse on the subject of study or treatment is likely not going to be good for some time.

Though I would add that someone who works a good angle on it might be able to get funding for study in such an atmosphere too. Depends how they play it and sell it I guess.

I have mentioned a few times that there has been inferences that allowing pedophiles access to erotic material that is not of actual people (cartoons, drawings and so forth) has shown positive results. Can you imagine the media reaction however if it was shown to be true and someone suggested implementing it???? I would expect a blood bath.

MadDog76 · 04-12-2014 01:27AM

Piliger wrote: »

Firstly, please note that some of us have other things in our lives and cannot read every single post every time.

While saying that I find it 'interesting' to read the very first line in the quote that you posted.

Well if you're going to take the time to post on a thread maybe take the time to read the thread first.......... if you're going to take the time to support another poster at the very least take the time to read his posts first so that we don't end up going around in circles or have a one-sided conversation.

MadDog76 · 04-12-2014 01:35AM

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.

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!!!

Piliger wrote: »

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Clearly there is. The ones that never have committed a crime against anyone are no criminals. The ones who have are.

And to treat pedophilia and understand it, what we need is a data set not solely based on convicts. We need open discourse and evaluation and study of ALL pedophile types. Without this I hold little hope of ever creating useful treatment plans.

Convicting them of thought crime is a move which is never going to allow us to treat them or find a way to treat them which is what the thread is about.

Did I quote something that was not in the paper? Did I interpret something in particular wrong? Given you replied to not one shred of my response to the paper, I can do little to nothing with your blanket dismissal here.

More accurately my position is that I think that whatever goes on in the privacy of ones brain is entirely their business and no one elses, and is simply irrelevant to me in any way unless they come to us seeking help, in which case I feel we should offer it. And that is what the thread is about. How to treat them.

So my position is not that it is acceptable OR unacceptable. My position is that what goes on in peoples heads is _irrelevant_ unless they seek help, perpetuate a crime, or their thoughts are useful data to us in formulating a cure or treatment for them.... which is what the thread is about.

The HE being floggg .......... this thread is not all about you :rolleyes:

MadDog76 · 04-12-2014 01:39AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think the papers in question were implying RELATIVELY rare rather than simply RARE. And that is not dubious at all I fear. Compared to the number of male pedophiles I would say that female ones are indeed comparatively rare.

But really as you point out yourself the kinds of figures we have to go on with this are poor as most of our knowledge comes from convicted abusers. And there is not only the issue that females are rarer in this, but convictions of them likely are too. Especially given many of the types of abuse from females might not be.... for want of a prettier way of putting it.... as forensically detectable as that from males.

Very true. And the studies linked to so far here mention this too. And I have mentioned it numerous times. Until we foster an environment where non-abusing pedophiles come forward and we add them to the data set, our data set is painfully incomplete.

We see around us innumerable non-abusing males with attractions to females. So that is the "norm" or that attraction we know. We do not judge male sexual interest in females solely by judgement of convicted rapists and abusers. If we did we would never leave ANY male alone with a woman.

The same is not true for pedophiles. The entire sample set people have to draw their impressions from IS the convicted rapists and abusers. The over all public impression of such people is therefore going to be sculpted by this.

But for every rapist and abuser of children, how many people have the attraction but do not act and never would? 1:1? 1:100? 1:10,000? We simply do not know. We simply do not have the data.

But given the estimates from the linked studies on how many people are pedophiles (one name mentioned by MadDog has even estimated upwards of 400million in the world) compared to the number of convictions we have for it, I do not think the ratio likely to be small.

But surely it is more important to study the Abusing paedophile as opposed to studying the Non-Abusing self-controlled paedophile ........ after all we don't need to worry about your "safe" paedophiles now do we?

MadDog76 · 04-12-2014 01:54AM

Piliger wrote: »

Two excellent posts nozzferrahhtoo, though your last statement begs the comment to be made yet again that the community of studies across the world in this area are widely accepted to be both limited, biased and inadequate. Either they are limited, as we agree, to the criminal and the caught kind, or are carried out by groups with an agenda that makes their reports almost worthless. This especially applies to female paedophiles. I wish I could remember where I saw it but about two years ago I saw a report from some survey (And YES all surveys should be taken with a shovel of salt !) where abuse my mothers of their children and children in their care came out higher than child abuse my men. But this is politically incorrect poison these days and is ignored thoroughly by the media.

We are going through a period when the media are exploiting paedophilia for all it is worth and every red cent they can screw out of it, and the resulting hysteria has created an atmosphere where the public has little patience with people wanting to study this phenomena.

Until that changes, I cannot see much progress being made in the area. Meanwhile we have a thought police ranting and raving with their own brand of hysteria.

So you (and others) seem to be separating paedophiles into two distinct categories ......... those who have the urges and attractions but have not and would not act upon these urges .......... they would have to be considered, by your logic, as not dangerous to children.

Then there are the paedophiles who do act on these urges and hurt small children ........... the, as you and others have called them, Criminal and Caught paedophiles ............ they would have to be considered, and indeed are, dangerous to children.

So while the study and treatment of "safe" paedophiles may be interesting it surely cannot be considered a priority right???
Surely it's the study of the dangerous paedophiles that are a priority ........... the same studies that you, and others, have criticised as not being as valid as the potential studies of "safe" paedophiles ............ I don't see the logic in that argument at all

Unless of course you consider "safe" paedophiles to be potentially dangerous to small children maybe ......... ???

floggg · 04-12-2014 09:23AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm starting to doubt your ability to read .......... *sigh* ......... see above

And what of your own comprehension skills?

It seems in your eagerness to jump on a soap box, you missed my point entirely (and not for the first time).

Which of course makes your silly attempts at personal put downs rather ironic.

Since i think i made the point reasonably clearly (as others have clearly gotten it), I won't bother repeating myself.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-12-2014 09:50AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

The HE being floggg

And I think, though he can correct me, that the position I describe matches his own too.

MadDog76 wrote: »

But surely it is more important to study the Abusing paedophile as opposed to studying the Non-Abusing self-controlled paedophile ........ after all we don't need to worry about your "safe" paedophiles now do we?

If "worry" is your only motivator then you might almost have a point, but recall the thread is about how to treat these people. And understanding all types and all angles on it is important to THAT agenda.

However as I pointed out before we do need to "worry" about them. We might not need to "worry" about them engaging in crimes against children.... but we need to worry about THEM and THEIR well being too.

The self loathing and depression many of them feel at finding attractions within themselves that are abhorrent to them... is worthy of our concern. They do not magically cease to be Human when they have such attractions. They are still human, and they are still worthy of our effort to find a way to treat them. And that is the point of this thread. HOW can we treat them? What would treatment plans be? How do we find them and test them? How would we implement them.

MadDog76 wrote: »

So while the study and treatment of "safe" paedophiles may be interesting it surely cannot be considered a priority right???

Wrong.

For example we do not actually know that the attractions are in any way leading to the abuse. It might be something else that causes people to abuse. And the pedophilia merely influences WHO they abuse. People with the "abuse defect" but without the "pedophilia defect" are the ones that rape and abuse adult women for example.

So if we limit our study only to the group you suggest, then this is data we can not get. If we attempt to study ALL groups as I suggest then we can start to unravel the mystery of whether X leads to Y, Y leads to X, X and Y are independent entirely, or X and Y both have a root cause Z.

This is pretty much science 101 though it might not be naturally obvious to the scientific lay person such as yourself. But when attempting to diagnose causes or explanations in science, the first step is to isolate variables as much as possible. So the interest in studying non-offending pedophiles would be to isolate further the "pedophilia" trait from the "abuse" trait to study it in a modular fashion. This is how science works..... we isolate the variable to be studied as much as we can. Ideally to "one" where at all possible.

And if and when we get THAT data, then we can have constructive discourse and research on actual treatments.

floggg · 04-12-2014 10:38AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I think, though he can correct me, that the position I describe matches his own too.

While I would largely agree with you, my point is slightly different.

To call it unacceptable infers there is some choice in the matter. There isn't though

Nobody chooses to have these attractions. So we can't say it's unacceptable from a moral view point because they aren't doing anything wrong by having these unwanted attractions. They can't help it, and I assume most don't want them.

They would obviously be extremely wrong to act on them though.

Even ignoring the moral angle, calling the state of affairs "unacceptable" is a bit absurd because we can't really refuse to accept it as a factual state of being. We may not like it, but we can't do anything about it.

To call it unacceptable would be akin to calling earthquakes unacceptable. Earthquakes are horrible, undesired and cause great harm and suffering, but they occur whether we describe them as "acceptable" or not.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-12-2014 10:41AM

Indeed. Perhaps much of it comes from the human penchant to have opposites. "If it is not unacceptable then you must think it is acceptable". It has to be black or white.

What you present above, and what I would entirely agree with, is that there is a more neutral approach. It simply is the state of affairs it is, and "acceptable and unacceptable" simply does not come into it.... until such time as the individual attempts to implement his desires in the real world.

floggg · 04-12-2014 10:56AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

So you (and others) seem to be separating paedophiles into two distinct categories ......... those who have the urges and attractions but have not and would not act upon these urges .......... they would have to be considered, by your logic, as not dangerous to children.

Then there are the paedophiles who do act on these urges and hurt small children ........... the, as you and others have called them, Criminal and Caught paedophiles ............ they would have to be considered, and indeed are, dangerous to children.

So while the study and treatment of "safe" paedophiles may be interesting it surely cannot be considered a priority right???
Surely it's the study of the dangerous paedophiles that are a priority ........... the same studies that you, and others, have criticised as not being as valid as the potential studies of "safe" paedophiles ............ I don't see the logic in that argument at all

Unless of course you consider "safe" paedophiles to be potentially dangerous to small children maybe ......... ???

You seems to think the world to be very black and white.

Firstly, I imagine their is no clear divide between "dangerous" and "non-dangerous" pedophiles. There are going to be many people who fall into one side or the other, but others will be somewhere in the middle.

If you only study one extreme, you won't ever have a complete understanding of the picture, or what might choices or circumstances might result in those in the middle committing abuse.

You likely won't ever got an accurate understanding of causation from studying only offenders - as they may be more likely to also have other personality traits or issues which might lead them to be more prone to abuse or violence than others.

So to isolate the cause of the attractions, you will to be able to separate attraction from other issues.

If you can't understand the cause, formulating a treatment will be much more difficult.

And obviously as nozzferhatoo has said, the fact that non-offenders themselves would also benefit from more research on this is reason enough itself.

We already study and treat a whole range of mental, sexual and emotional issues which affect people's quality of life but which don't pose a risk to other people. Why should this be any different?

Piliger · 04-12-2014 03:07PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Well if you're going to take the time to post on a thread maybe take the time to read the thread first

No thanks.

if you're going to take the time to support another poster at the very least take the time to read his posts first so that we don't end up going around in circles or have a one-sided conversation.

My posts are completely coherent with their topic thank you.

Piliger · 04-12-2014 03:08PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

But surely it is more important to study the Abusing paedophile as opposed to studying the Non-Abusing self-controlled paedophile ........ after all we don't need to worry about your "safe" paedophiles now do we?

So you do actually think that those that study male sexuality should only bother studying rapists ?

Piliger · 04-12-2014 03:11PM

floggg wrote: »

While I would largely agree with you, my point is slightly different.

To call it unacceptable infers there is some choice in the matter. There isn't though

Nobody chooses to have these attractions. So we can't say it's unacceptable from a moral view point because they aren't doing anything wrong by having these unwanted attractions. They can't help it, and I assume most don't want them.

They would obviously be extremely wrong to act on them though.

Even ignoring the moral angle, calling the state of affairs "unacceptable" is a bit absurd because we can't really refuse to accept it as a factual state of being. We may not like it, but we can't do anything about it.

To call it unacceptable would be akin to calling earthquakes unacceptable. Earthquakes are horrible, undesired and cause great harm and suffering, but they occur whether we describe them as "acceptable" or not.

It also infers some kind of sanction on those with these 'unacceptable' emotions, which is an appalling vista.

MadDog76 · 05-12-2014 07:14PM

Piliger wrote: »

It also infers some kind of sanction on those with these 'unacceptable' emotions, which is an appalling vista.

Well then, call me appalling so ........... and what shall we call the paedophiles???

MadDog76 · 05-12-2014 07:16PM

floggg wrote: »

You seems to think the world to be very black and white.

Firstly, I imagine their is no clear divide between "dangerous" and "non-dangerous" pedophiles. There are going to be many people who fall into one side or the other, but others will be somewhere in the middle.

If you only study one extreme, you won't ever have a complete understanding of the picture, or what might choices or circumstances might result in those in the middle committing abuse.

You likely won't ever got an accurate understanding of causation from studying only offenders - as they may be more likely to also have other personality traits or issues which might lead them to be more prone to abuse or violence than others.

So to isolate the cause of the attractions, you will to be able to separate attraction from other issues.

If you can't understand the cause, formulating a treatment will be much more difficult.

And obviously as nozzferhatoo has said, the fact that non-offenders themselves would also benefit from more research on this is reason enough itself.

We already study and treat a whole range of mental, sexual and emotional issues which affect people's quality of life but which don't pose a risk to other people. Why should this be any different?

You can't have it both ways ......... a paedophile is either dangerous or he is not dangerous .......... they don't half abuse a child

Piliger · 05-12-2014 09:02PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You can't have it both ways ......... a paedophile is either dangerous or he is not dangerous .......... they don't half abuse a child

Personally I find that an astonishingly naive world view.

Piliger · 05-12-2014 09:03PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Well then, call me appalling so ........... and what shall we call the paedophiles???

Please try to apply some kind of accuracy. I never called you appalling.

looking_around · 05-12-2014 09:27PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You can't have it both ways ......... a paedophile is either dangerous or he is not dangerous .......... they don't half abuse a child

every single person in the world has the potential to be dangerous.

I'll repeat "every. single. person."

so is every person either dangerous or not dangerous? thats an extremely narrow viewpoint. and impossible. It's not one or the other.

Paedophiles are human, they aren't a separate entity who are different from the rest of the human population. Humans arent just good or evil.

MadDog76 · 06-12-2014 12:54AM

looking_around wrote: »

every single person in the world has the potential to be dangerous.

I'll repeat "every. single. person."

so is every person either dangerous or not dangerous? thats an extremely narrow viewpoint. and impossible. It's not one or the other.

Paedophiles are human, they aren't a separate entity who are different from the rest of the human population. Humans arent just good or evil.

I find it distasteful that you would attempt to put paedophiles in the same category as "every single person in the world" ......... they are not the same as the rest of society, they are (potentially) dangerous to children in particular ......... please don't try to say that I am potentially dangerous to children, I'm not.
If you feel that you are then that's your issue, I am definitely not.

porsche959 · 06-12-2014 12:59AM

It seems that one of those interviewed on camera in the programme "The Paedophile Next Door" has been reported to police for admitting to viewing child abuse images.

Which somewhat vindicates me in my view that this was a badly executed programme, even if the idea might have been legitimate.

The point of the programme, as far as I understand it, seems to have been to make a distinction between paedophilia, as an 'infliction', sexual disorder, abnormality or whatever, as opposed to the actual act of abusing a child - in itself a legitimate distinction, and valid subject to research, but, well, if they've ended in a criminal complaint against their main interviewee, they've just pissed off everyone really and done a really s.hitty job.

ALiasEX · 06-12-2014 01:00AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I find it distasteful that you would attempt to put paedophiles in the same category as "every single person in the world" ......... they are not the same as the rest of society, they are (potentially) dangerous to children in particular ......... please don't try to say that I am potentially dangerous to children, I'm not.
If you feel that you are then that's your issue, I am definitely not.

You are. Child (sexual) abuse is often committed by non-pedophiles.

porsche959 · 06-12-2014 01:09AM

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.

A moment's consideration shows that this is not a reasonable comparison.

Under the criminal law, all acts (as opposed to inclinations, fantasies, etc) of peadophilia are de facto criminal, however, clearly all acts of male sexuality are not rape, in fact only a comparatively small subset (one hopes) of them are.

The Paedophile Next Door

Comments