Friar Bellows

Are you talking about child molestors or are you talking about pedophiles (people who are sexually attracted to children)? The two groups share some members but are definitely not equal. To me, a child molestor is a person willing to do harm to children and not neccessarily sexually attracted to children. A pedophile, on the other hand, is sexually attracted to children, and not necessarily willing to do harm to children. We must find a way to help members of the latter group avoid becoming members of the former group -- if they feel that there is a danger of this happening. So I'm not saying we should force them into such programs. Thoughts should never be crimes.

Friar Bellows

Hmm, I didn't know that going to therapy meant you were "crazy". I think you had better "[g]et on with the program". Also, I never suggested that they should be forced into therapy.

"Bunch of bigots." Let's see. You have an 8-year-old daughter who needs to be minded while you and your spouse go to an awards night (after all, it's well after her bedtime). Unfortunately, no relatives are available to do the job. But your neighbour George is available to mind your child while you are away. He's a nice family man, with 3 children of his own, a model citizen of the community, very responsible, has good references from other parents whose children he has minded, and you consider him your friend.

Oh, and, by the way, he's sexually attracted to 8-year-old girls.

Would you let him mind your little Debbie?

tronvillain

Corwin:
Perhaps. Of course, it could simply be a matter of sexual response being skewed abnormally towards youth characteristics or the lack of sexual response to characteristics of sexual maturity or both. I can think of a lot of different possibilities. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

Jimmy Higgins

Sigmund Freud talked about this in some book. He believed that through moral and cultural rules, we have retarded the process of natural procreation. He suggests that such procreation abilities in humans may actually have been set back, taking longer to develop because of such norms (this I don't think has ever been shown in any studies, not that I know of any studies being done in the first place). As of now, people are capable of reproducing well before the law says we are supposed to. (Which is fine. Children shouldn't be having children nor should anyone be trying to make them have children). But such a thing is a physical reality. There could exist a natural firing for the desire to procreate in the mind that is conflicting with the cultural norms. These desires, however, should be controlable, I mean we are humans after all. So this can somewhat explain why some people are attracted to young teens. However, I don't know what in the world can attract a person to an adolescent (or even younger).

Mad Kally

From <a href="http://www.webmd.com" target="_blank"> WebMD </a>

cricket

Any of you following the van Dam case, at forums such as <a href="http://64.225.95.82/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=Danielle" target="_blank">this one?</a> (btw, my name there is 'shrimplegs'.)

Friar Bellows

"Fantasies" and even "urges" need not progress to "behaviours". Help should be available for those who fear they may progress or who just want to be helped.

So, yep, totally compatible with my definition:

Mad Kally

Emphasis mine.

I agree. If people are only thinking about it, I doubt they would be arrested.

Pedophilia: Sexual abuse includes fondling a child's genitals, intercourse, incest, rape, sodomy, exhibitionism, and commercial exploitation through prostitution or the production of pornographic materials.


Not neccessarily does not mean never..

Pedophilia is sexual child abuse.

Read <a href="http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4818&rd=1" target="_blank"> Medterms.com </a>

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]</p>

Friar Bellows

I'm still waiting to find out whether this ineffectiveness of cognitive therapies applies to child molestors only or pedophiles in general.

What if pedophiles who weren't child molestors got together and formed a group which met weekly to discuss their thoughts, published their thoughts on paper, illustrated their thoughts on web sites, and so on? (But no photography since a photograph requires a victim!) Should that activity be a crime? Do you think they'd be arrested? Ostracised?

I just need you to clarify something. Are you saying:

1) At some point in their lives, all pedophiles will turn their thoughts and fantasies into real actions. There is not a single pedophile who will never become a child molestor.

2) Out of a group of X pedophiles, a certain fraction, Y/X, will become child molestors at some point in their lives. This fraction is less than 1.

So is it 1) or 2)? I believe that 2) is correct. I don't know what the fraction is, though I suspect it's closer to 0 than it is to 1. I'll leave that to research. I can see why it's difficult to find out what that fraction is. After all, who would admit to being a pedophile? If it became public, goodbye job, goodbye community, goodbye friends, goodbye life. This is why I think that those who want to seek treatment need to be allowed to do so without fear of their affliction becoming public knowledge.

repoman

I think that Mad Kally has the best take on this subject. Personally, I wonder how much of the current pedophilia has to do with the flood of it on the net. I mean are their people who would not otherwise be so interested in kids who get hooked on the net?

Think of it this way, looking at a pic you see a girl that is "pure" and innocent showing no signs of aging. Perhaps some guys can twist the image to imagine she is older larger and more intelligent than she is. But will the same guy look at the same aged girl in front of him and think "oh yeah!"? Or will he say "What the hell was I thinking? I can't have sex with her that's gross"?

Porn to begin with dispenses for the need for actors and models to be intelligent beings. can a guy who has desensitized himself enough get to the point that he says, "ah, this one is just a little bit younger, not as hot but she's more cute and pure."? At this point I guess it may come down to porn viewers self-segregating into ones who do and don't cross the line to kiddy porn based on personality, character, self-control and maybe fear of the law.

But even after this point The next line is the one of who actually goes out and molests kids. By the time a guy has crosses all of these lines, he has pretty well shown himslef bankrupt.


To make a small digression, I remember reading a year ago that western people (compared to Asians) have an exaggerated sense of control over their behaviour (i.e. too much individualism), despite what their environment is.

An example actually used was that an asian person would avoid porn not becasue he thought it was immoral but because he was afraid of what it might lead to. However, a western person would focus on the general statement "all porn is bad" and after seeing that normal bland porn is not bad, rationalize that the harder degrading stuff is still porn and therefore not bad (kind of the same way taht kids who learn that pot isn't terrible, want to try harder drugs). It is kind of a creeping legalism based too much on strict logic that we in the west suffer from.

Now looking back at some of the stuff I have seen on the net (scat, bdsm, bukkake, fisting, bestiality etc...) these are not things that I am glad I spent my time on, and the approach of avoiding it in the first place would have indeed been better. And that wierd porn stuff is something that I see as just a freakshow or a car wreck, I'm so glad that I have little impulse to do any of that stuff. Good luck to the poor sod who wants to do this crap too!