k. here's something that's been bugging me for a while.
A pedophile a post-adolescent who is attracted to pre-adolescents. For instance a 20-year-old who is attracted to girls or boys under the age of 12. There's also 'hebephiles', post-adolescents who are attracted to pre-adolescents (for instance a 30-year-old who is attracted to 15-year-olds) - they're usually grouped among pedophiles. Pedophilia does NOT mean abusing a child. It means being attracted to children.
Many, if not MOST pedophiles, do not EVER act on their urges. Some do not because it is illegal. Others do not because they believe it is immoral. Some of them are only sexually attracted to children. Some, however, also truly love and care for children, and the sexual attraction is only a small part of their life.
And many child molesters are not pedophiles are all. They aren't attracted to children, they just hurt children because children are vulnerable. It is estimated that only 2-10% of child molesters meet the criteria for pedophilia.
So why are all pedophiles automatically labeled child molesters, and vice versa? Is it not possible to be attracted to children, yet also a good person? Being attracted to someone doesn't mean you would ever act on that attraction, or even think that attraction is okay. So what's wrong with being a pedophile?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I honestly never knew there was a difference. I always used the two terms interchangably simply because I never knew any better.
The problem is that sexual attractions are a primal drive. Sex is one of our basic needs, along with food and shelter. People will find an outlet. They may not act upon their attractions by molesting a child, but many use pornography. Consuming child pornography contributes to child molestation.
And they can be good people, but they are good people with a serious problem. One of my good friends was a pedophile. He was a GREAT person. He secretly used porn to keep his attractions under control. He tried to date women, but he was not attracted to them. Eventually, after 30 years of never having a satisfying sexual encounter, he coerced a child in his class (he was a substitute teacher) to undress and he took pictures. With a film camera. He had the film developed at Target, knowing full well he would be caught, because he didn't know how else to get help. He went to prison, got out, and disappeared. No idea what happened to him.
But I believe he was a good person. I worry about him, because I don't think sexual preference is something that can be eliminated or changed by therapy. Those who prefer children are pretty much screwed, because there will never be a healthy outlet for their sexual urges.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
x.x Sorry, but there's no way in hell that a person who would sexually abuse a child is a "great person". Maybe up to the point where he did that, yes. But not then.
Some pedophiles are also attracted to adults. Others can find outlets via non-pornographic pictures of children, or virtual/textual child pornography, or through role-playing. Actually hurting a child is never, ever excusible. Humans have basic self-control.
I do agree with your last bit though.
...is never EVER excusable. Ki : no apology needed there ^ . And, as I said below, there are massive doubts about whether anyone is "great" if he chooses to get his rocks off by attacking a child instead of admitting he needs help and going right out to get it proactively ... from an ADULT licensed therapist.
Moreover, I think there's a strong possibility that Ediblewoman is just jacking us around. Really difficult to believe that she's serious about justifying criminal activity, especially of THIS kind.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon
I don't think I said it was excusable.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I know where you are coming from. The act is inexusable, but the person who commits the act is a person, a person who with serious problems and someone who needs our help.
He spent years putting himself into a position of trust as a teacher. He got caught. You are trusting his (a known liar) word, or assuming that this was the first or only actual inapropriate contact he had with a child. He may even be working his way into position for another "satisfying sexual encounter" as you praise him as "a GREAT person." What does it take for you to think of someone as devious?
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
I don't know him anymore, so I am not praising him as anything now. When I knew him, yes, he was pretty amazing. But no one knew about his dark side. Once that came out, it changed everything for everyone.
I know you don't think highly of me, but that was not really the point of my comment.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Blind people develop superior spacial memory and hearing.
Evil child molestors and con men act charming, and beyond reproach, because they are consciously hiding their true intentions.
---
My comment had nothing to do with you, I don't know you. It was a response to the things you wrote about the sneaky individual you talked about in this post. He did not accidentaly get a job working with children. He was not a great guy because he didn't care what people thought. He had to have trust to do what he wanted to do.
I have literaly employed over a thousand different people over the years. I have a great deal of trust in people to be what they are, not what I want them to be. I have been tricked many times, but I no longer get tricked twice by the same person.
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
I get that. Thanks.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Well about the only thing I can't match is CB's hiring of a thousand people. My total would be less than a dozen but there were criminal background checks on each one. Just like there were for all the staff in my school. Because it was a school, you see.
Everything else CB wrote is right on, in my agreement department.
Challenged Teacher got the job he did because he evaded accountability since someone else dropped the ball [probably a LOT of someone elses.] It's called being an enabler. In legal parlance, it might even rise to the level of being criminally liable as an Accessory Before the Fact.
He was NOT a "great person". No great person attacks children. No great person thinks about doing that, either. For thirty seconds, let alone thirty years. Criminals do. And do.
And of course not every criminal gets caught.
This "inability to go for treatment because he didn't know how" argument is so completely absurd on the merits that I marvel I spent any words on explaining why.
I don't know Ediblewoman either. But I sure know her attitudes. The more we get on this forgiveness and making excuses kick, and the more we refuse to look at past history, the more we put innocent students in future danger.
In Texas at the moment, there's a new state law that mandates background checks, even down to the FINGERPRINTING of all public school teachers and administrators. That's whether they are coming in the door or whether they're getting ready to retire. If they have contact with kids, out come the inkpads.
That new state law is there for a reason. A whole bunch of innocent sad reasons, actually.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon
I never suggested he should EVER be allowed to be around children again. In fact, I never said I had forgiven him.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Challenged Teacher got the job he did because he evaded accountability since someone else dropped the ball
You seem to assume he had a record when he became a teacher in the first place. From the sound of the original story, that's not the case. He had a personal history at some point, but even that's not guaranteed to have started until after he was employed.
No great person thinks about doing that, either.
It starts out as fantasies that the person believes he'll never act on. Find an erotic fiction site and you'll find examples other taboo fantasies, such as raping another family member. Just because a person has fantasies, it doesn't mean he'll act on them. However, it's when the more dangerous fantasies turn into the desires, then it becomes a medical problem. It's not until the desires become acts (including finding help), though, that it can become a legal matter.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Kiota is right -- in the strict Latin meaning of the word. It's like aquaphilia = to like water, to like swimming / water skiing / diving / etc. Problems with that? Only chlorinated hair, perpetual goosebumps, prune skin, maybe :)
Kiota is wrong -- to the extent that "pedophilia " and "pedophile" have been criminalized by the American justice system as a behavior and as a description of a person --- male, female, animal, vegetable, mineral --- who acts on that behavior to coerce another person [usually a young child] into a boundary violation --- disrobing, and-or physical / sexual activity-- which is defined by law as being against that law.
Most people in society are neither lawyers nor legislators. [Which is probably a very good thing, btw, considering the track record of those worthies.] The misinterpretation comes in the popular belief that being a person who likes children is automatically a person who is going to sexually attack -- "molest" -- those children. Not true, but most people won't make that fine distinction, split hairs that carefully. So "pedophile" has become a synonym for "child sexual attacker". Exactly the witness of Poison Ivy.
As a former law enforcement officer, I find it ABSOLUTELY APPALLING that Ediblewoman is an apologist here, for a teacher who has been convicted of criminal sexual behavior with a minor and who has been incarcerated for that. Her reasoning is that he did it deliberately --- possibly ruining the life of his victim for a long time --- because he did not know of any other way to get help.
That is pure, unadulterated hogwash.
Mr. Challenged Teacher had only to go to one of thousands of sexual treatment providers practicing in this country and sign himself up for therapy BEFORE he "coerced" his victim. Just pick up the phone, walk in the door, lie down on the couch, cry like crazy, get it all out, whatever. This all could have been done discreetly and, although in many states both sexual therapists and rape crisis center workers are Mandated Reporters --- meaning their state REQUIRES them to turn over information they acquire about possible / probable crimes that have occurred but not been reported yet --- , Mister CT could have enjoyed enough confidentiality to have made some real progress in healing himself. To replace a 30-year career of child porn, magazines, film, whatever --- to replace that with a real live sexual attack on a real live defenseless child who trusted him as an authority figure --- is just astonishingly selfish and inconsiderate of everyone but himself and he is exactly the kind of person the laws are designed to punish in order to protect other defenseless children.
I'm also aware that ironies abound, in the way our criminal sexual laws are enforced against teachers. Take Mary Kay Letourneau, for example. I won't restate the facts here, it's what Google is for. She was 25 or so, her student was 14, they trysted, she got fired, charged, convicted, imprisoned. And their story had a very happy ending.
But they are the absolute exception.
The problem is that society tars and feathers perps with a very wide brush and very sticky tar. No wonder E-woman's friend "disappeared." Rightly or wrongly, society is perpetually disapproving of a convicted sexual attacker whether he or she is healed or not. Nobody wants them around at all. And though it may not be possible to implement a complete behavioral change in the mind and behaviors of someone undergoing therapy, at times enough behavioral controls can be adopted by a convicted attacker that he / she is no longer a danger to those with whom he / she comes into contact.
So, how do you tell the difference between a dangerous pedo and a safe one?
Well, um ... you don't. Ahead of time, that is. Guessing wrong is not worth it. Especially if it's your child up next.
Also, I don't agree that such are "pretty much screwed". They can get right out of America and go find another country whose cultural mores and legal strictures are much more congenial to child sexual activity than ours is.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon
I meant to say he was a great person. And I knew him for a few years. He was, as far as anyone knew. And when I said I worry about him it was because I don't think he can be cured, and who knows if he will do it again? I don't think that's being an apologist.
I think that at the time that he offended, which was several years ago now, sexual urges toward children were not something EVER talked about until after the fact. Now we have billboards around town that say "Having sexual thoughts about children? Call 1-800..... Maybe he would have called. Back then, I think he was panicked and overwhelmed and he crossed the line.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
If someone is panicked and overwhelmed HE GETS HIS BUTT TO A THERAPIST instead of wrecking a child's life. Don't know how many years ago you're talking about here, but treatment for sex offenders is certainly not something that started yesterday.
Nope, E-woman, all kinds of things ARE talked about behind the closed doors of a therapist's office and in the safespace of her couch. Totally not the same as talking about them in public. That's why it's a safe space.
Sure he crossed the line and committed a criminal act. I don't give a warm hoot how panicked and overwhelmed he was. He had a choice, for 30 years. He made a choice on that day. He had a choice and he denied that choice to his victim. He denied his victim his or her personhood. He treated him or her like a piece of meat.
If you were giving his victim 1% of the concern you are giving him, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You don't know whether he can be "cured" or not. I don't either. Kiota doesn't. Because none of us is a treatment provider working in that area, so we can't pinpoint which treatment metholodogy has a chance of working.. If he can't be "cured" or taught to control himself effectively, yes, of course he's going to add to his victim list.
I think you should go look up the recidivist stats for this kind of crime....over two, three, five years.... They are pretty damn high. A single percent is too high for the next group of victims.
I also think -- allowing for the reality that I never knew this guy in person and hopefully never ever will -- the fact that you were led to think he was a "great person" for the few years you knew him just witnesses to the fact that he was able to con you just as easily as he was able to con his victim...and, actually, put on an act for all his class members, his boss, the superintendent , whoever hired him in the first place.....
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon
...I don't think he necessarily conned everyone. he might've been a genuinely good person until the moment he made the decision to hurt a child.
The molestation was not the part he did on purpose to get caught. After he did it, he had an oh shit moment where he realized he had become the monster he had feared all his life, so he took the film to Target. That part was on purpose and to get help and to stop himself.
Is it the fact that I didn't expressly say that his act was abominable that pissed you off? I didn't think I needed to, because that is a given. It had already been expressed in the blog. I don't think it is wrong to feel sad about a person I once knew and liked throwing his life away and damaging a child, and I don't think it is wrong to think of him as a human being. Empathy for fellow humans the same as condoning criminal activity.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
This "oh shit moment" is your restating an apology again. If he really feared he was becoming a monster, he had lots and lots and lots of time to do something about it, didn't he? The simplest thing, of course, would have been never to have put himself in a job which required close contact with children to whom he could be a monster, no?
You just do not do that and expect any sympathy. I'm glad he got none from the criminal justice system.
......yes, that's *exactly* what pissed me off. The victim in all of this gets totally lost. A child with no rights becomes a victim with no rights. Because he was a child. Guess he grew up pretty fast, didn't he?
If he thought of himself as a monster why should *you* think otherwise?
And your last sentence should read "Empathy for fellow humans IS NOT the same as condoning criminal activity."
Agreed. But my empathy is with the children not with their butchers.
I venture to say that if this had been *your* child who got attacked by this "teacher"... well, again we wouldn't be having this convo, either.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting. ":Joe Gideon
I don't really know what it is you think I am denying. I'm glad he was caught and punished too. I don't think the victim was lost in this. I don't know anything about the victim, though, so I can't speak on that. It is not within the realm of my experience.
I simply said that I knew this great guy once, and it turned out he was a pedophiliac type child molester. No one knew he had been struggling with it, it overtook him, he offended, he took his film to be developed, and he was arrested. And I don't know where he is anymore, or if he has offended again. That is the realm of my experience with the situation, and therefore, all I wrote about.
I could say he was an evil fuck and a deviant and we all knew it would end up this way, but I didn't because in the entire time I knew him, he never was, and people seldom think that of a child molester before they offend. You can't exactly pick them out of a crowd. They could be anyone.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I absolutely hate that show on dateline where they lure people to think they're meeting someone that they're really not. I think its so sad to display someone's faults so openly, in such a way to hurt their friends, family, and prevent them from being able to reenter society after being incarcerated, without someone recognizing them and finding them loathesome creatures.
Sometimes that show makes me sick because of the sex crazed idiots the show portrays, but sometimes it makes me sick to see those men who decide to change their minds, but are lured back with an additional call to urge them to continue to their doom. That's pure exploitation in my eyes.
I think a lot of these people take for granted the fact that we can look things up on the Internet and we as the Millennial Generation are good at making use of things like Google. They seem to find it impossible to believe that he might not have known there was help available out there, possibly partly because he didn't know how to do a search. It's really not much different than a person growing up in a conservative Christian family in a conservative Christian area not knowing anything about Wicca other than what the Church taught them, and since it was a "forbidden" topic (witches are evil, devil worshipers, any involvement with them or their craft is a sin and will [insert some sort of retribution here]). Pedophilia is one of those things that is a "forbidden" topic and therefore people are ashamed to come forward or talk about it openly.
I think they also seem to forget that these people are still human, which means they still make mistakes. Yes, it's an abominable mistake. One that will cost them pretty much everything for the rest of their lives, even after serving their time in lockup, therapy, and perhaps community service. Even after being "clean" for decades, they are still looked at as monsters. Now, it would be different if it's a repeat offender, but people like the man you mentioned, did it once, realized what he did, and did the only thing he knew to do to get help. Hopefully he has found a place where he could start over and get the proper help he needs.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Well. Well well.
Hello Millennial Generation.
We will go very slowly on this one. Baby steps, even.
The telephone has been around for perhaps 100 years. More, even.
Telephone books, about the same time, maybe a bit less. Yellow Pages, ditto. Real live Information Operators started out before that. You dialed zero and you got a human being person, not an Automated Computerized Call Director.
The English alphabet, a little longer than the telephone. Gosh golly, maybe even a Millenium or two??
Are you following me so far.
The third letter in that alphabet is C as in Counseling-Personal and Family. The eleventh letter from the end of the alphabet is P, as in Psychologists and Psychotherapists.
Do you seriously mean to tell all of us that our Friendly Teacher here, who has at least an undergrad degree and a teaching license and at least a smattering of knowledge in the subject he has been hired to teach, does not know how to use either the alphabet or the Yellow Pages or how to punch buttons on a phone?
Maybe he is too busy? [Poor thing.]
Too busy to PICK UP AN ACTUAL REFERENCE BOOK IN HIS OVERHEATED LITTLE PAWS AND FIND INFO THEREIN [omg what an innovative idea!] My goodness gracious. It took me less than a minute to look in mine, here, finding one page under C and two under P . I just did a little field test for your benefit to see how oppressively difficult this tasklet would be.
So this may have been all Swahili or Urdu to him, explaining why "he might not have known there was help out there?"
He "didn't know how to do a search". Come ON.
What are you smoking this afternoon, sir?
OK, we can play it your way, also. Tripping out to your turf: search engines and research databases. Even a cursory look at them will indicate to you that sexual crimes happen first in your brain; and, the norm is that it takes awhile, even 30 years [imagine!] before a crime is perpetrated irl. Unless we are talking MPD or paranoid / classical schizophrenia. In that case, mental illness is a perfect defense to raise at trial.
If our Teacher of the Year, here, has tried to do that at all, the judge [or judge + jury ]apparently have decided that this line of defense was ridiculous. Otherwise they would have put him into a psych hospital instead of prison.
And another little nugget for you. Regardless of what the crime was that got them in stir, and sexual attackers seem to be champs at this, prisoners all think that the bottom line is that there was only one thing they did wrong.
They got caught.
" To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon
Do you seriously mean to tell all of us that our Friendly Teacher here, who has at least an undergrad degree and a teaching license and at least a smattering of knowledge in the subject he has been hired to teach
GenEd degree for high school or below. That doesn't mean he knows everything, particularly in a specialized field of psychology (or computers, for that matter). I work with people with Doctorates and are some of the best and highly regarded professionals in their field and they can barely turn on their computers in the morning to check their email, much less do anything else on a computer. I also work with a teacher who is supposed to be qualified to teach College level courses who has come to me (his faculty assistant) with questions about some of the math problems in the class he teaches.
Even a cursory look at them will indicate to you that sexual crimes happen first in your brain
So does Anorexia, Bulimia, Depression, [insert pretty much any other behavioral disorder here], yet very rarely do any of them seek help before it gets to the point that they're thrown into a hospital, sometimes kicking and screaming, all the while denying that they have a problem to begin with. If you stop and think for thirty seconds about them and look at them as human beings, instead of monsters, you might see that there is a sense of "it won't get that far, I can control it." It's also entirely possible that such desires didn't surface at all until after he got his degree and was teaching. Does that make a pedophile/child molester's actions any less condemnable? No, but hindsight is 20/20, as they say. You start seeing pieces to a puzzle only after an event happened.
You don't know your teen's suicidal until they commit a suicidal act (or attempt to do so), then suddenly, everything comes to light. It's the same idea.
Also, I don't appreciate you treating me like some child just because you don't agree with what I have to say. Please refrain from the condescending attitude.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Plus, from what i gather, therapists are terribly exspensive. plus, sometimes you don't know you can't take something until you snap. keeping something to yourself for such a long time has to be hard. the other option is to speak out and be criminialized or maltreated by your friends for having innapropriate thoughts about children. he should have gotten help. but maybe help should have been more available for people like him.
All of these points could have been made with a less condescending tone.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
...word. Brad, I don't usually criticize you, but. Cool down. It doesn't sound to me like ediblewoman and you are really disagreeing all that much. And I know she is quite an intelligent and reasonable woman.
...points taken. Thank you.
E-woman and I just "met", and I'll happily defer to your appraisal ;)
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon
"He made a choice on that day. He had a choice and he denied that choice to his victim."
Yes he did. An abominable choice. I never said otherwise.
"If you were giving his victim 1% of the concern you are giving him, we wouldn't be having this conversation."
Is it not possible to have concern for both parties? I think therapists who deal with sex offenders probably have some concern for their clients. It is natural to have concern for a person you once knew, to wonder what pushed them to become something unspeakable.
"You don't know whether he can be "cured" or not."
That's what I said.
"If he can't be "cured" or taught to control himself effectively, yes, of course he's going to add to his victim list."
I also said this.
"recidivist stats for this kind of crime....over two, three, five years.... They are pretty damn high."
This is why I said the above.
"the fact that you were led to think he was a "great person" for the few years you knew him just witnesses to the fact that he was able to con you just as easily as he was able to con his victim...and, actually, put on an act for all his class members, his boss, the superintendent , whoever hired him in the first place....."
It is an amazing skill that molesters have, and pedophiles who haven't molested, too. They get really good at hiding everything. It doesn't make me the bad guy for having a friendship with him prior to his offense.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
oops. The above was a response to "still not buying it." I wasn't logged on, and it posted to the blog instead of the comment.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I've thought about this kind of thing before, and it bothered me how this kind of thing is so often twisted by the American public. Like, if you're gay, you're expected to jump on the next person of the same sex with no regard for propriety or the actual attractiveness of said person. it's ridiculous. if a younger woman dates a much older man, she's a glod digger. if an older woman dates a much younger man, she's a cradle robber. it's like, can we just quit with all the labels, please? they're making me dizzy!
"A pedophile a post-adolescent who is attracted to pre-adolescents. For instance a 20-year-old who is attracted to girls or boys under the age of 12. There's also 'hebephiles', post-adolescents who are attracted to pre-adolescents (for instance a 30-year-old who is attracted to 15-year-olds) - they're usually grouped among pedophiles."
So.... what's the difference?
Pedophilia = attraction to prepubescent children. Hebephilia = attraction to youth.
I think there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. Today's society considers them immoral and all of that other good stuff. It is just the time period that we are living in, I am sure that thousands of years ago things were different (Romans), and the majority of people think of pedophiles are immoral. So is there a thing we can do about it? no. That is just what people think, who decides what is moral? God? Government?. Certainly society does and if you are any different from the norm, then you are looked down upon. Nothing anyone can do about it.
i agree, senday. something like this wouldn't have been a big deal in previous times. i mean, think of how young girls were married off in europe during midieval times. has anyone here read memoirs of a geisha? it was a special ceremony for young geisha to lose their virginity. rape is wrong though. ever forcing anyone into something like that should always be punished, and i think that it's hard to say whether a child is actually in consent because they generally wouldn't know everything about sex, and they are vulnerable. they compete for the affection of adults and are likely to do a lot in order to please them.
Doesn't mean it was okay, though.
In an ideal society I think a child would possibly be able to consent to SOME age-appropriate sexual activity with older people, but in this time/society? No way.
...Of who to attack and defend.
"It is estimated that only 2-10% of child molesters meet the criteria for pedophilia."
Source? Are you including non-sexual abuse?
---
"So why are all pedophiles automatically labeled child molesters, and vice versa?"
Perhaps being overzealous to protect children is a bit more important to most people than proper nomenclature. The vast majority of both active and non-practicing pedophiles keep their desires secret, for very good reason. Those that are caught sexually abusing children are the only ones thus labeled. They are definitely child molesters, and there is every reason for anyone not making a clinical diagnosis to consider them as pedophiles.
---
"Is it not possible to be attracted to children, yet also a good person?
Perhaps, though you should avoid placing yourself in a position to be tempted to harm a child. If you were a school teacher with this issue I would consider that premeditation, of a potential attack, or abuse of trust.
---
"Being attracted to someone doesn't mean you would ever act on that attraction, or even think that attraction is okay. So what's wrong with being a pedophile?
It is a life threatening mental illness. This does not mean that it is the persons fault, but it does mean that they are a potential danger to themselves and others. It would be ideal if dispassionate research came up with a way to contain that risk, but the pedophile is not the victim here. The child is. Your sympathy is an interesting symptom.
If you were on the jury of a parent accused of murder for killing a pedophile that was abusing their child how would you vote?
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
Source: Kinsey-Report, Lautmann, Brongersma, Groth
What does non-sexual abuse have to do with it? O.o
If you were a school teacher with this issue I would consider that premeditation, of a potential attack, or abuse of trust.
Not if the person had reasonable self-control and understood acting on his fantasies would be morally wrong. O.o Plenty of people have fantasies or urges they know are completely inappropriate. A pedophile - who also has a strong emotional attachment to children and genuinely loves them - could make an excellent school teacher as long as he/she was also a moral person.
It is a life threatening mental illness. This does not mean that it is the persons fault, but it does mean that they are a potential danger to themselves and others. It would be ideal if dispassionate research came up with a way to contain that risk, but the pedophile is not the victim here. The child is. Your sympathy is an interesting symptom.
Um. I'm not talking about child molesters. I'm talking about pedophiles. I have no sympathy for child molesters, whether they also happen to be pedophiles or not. I only have sympathy for pedophiles who do not act on their fantasies. Also, there is no evidence that pedophilia is a mental illness, nor that it is 'life threatening".
If you were on the jury of a parent accused of murder for killing a pedophile that was abusing their child how would you vote?
I wouldn't give a damn if the abuser was a pedophile or not, for starters, why would I care about someone's sexual attraction?
If the parent walked in on the abuser raping their child and just hauled off and beat them badly enough to kill them, I'd want a shorter sentence. If it was a pre-meditated murder, I'd probably still have some sympathy, but murder is murder.
Reality check.
You would never get on that jury with that personal background. Unless you lied on the Jury Selection Form, and if you did, that's illegal. If you did and they found out about it afterwards, the verdict would be thrown out.
That is, you'd never get on that jury in the first place --- if the lawyer for the defense were worth two cents [debatable, but that's another blog.] You'd be what they call "excused for cause".
If they couldn't find twelve people [or ten, or five, depending on the jurisdictional rules] committed to rendering a fair verdict based on the evidence presented and neither on their personal histories nor beliefs, the judge would move the trial.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting. " :Joe Gideon
...Brad, the question was obviously theoretical...
Then, obviously, I wouldn't choose you for Rachel Booth's jury, would I.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon
"A pedophile - who also has a strong emotional attachment to children and genuinely loves them - could make an excellent school teacher as long as he/she was also a moral person."
In theory you are correct, but I would not allow them to teach my child. I can't say the manipulation of the perpetrator should increase their sentence...But I have a feeling I would favor harsher punishment for them than you would in any case.
---
'Also, there is no evidence that pedophilia is a mental illness, nor that it is 'life threatening".'
It is life threatening for the child they may rape and murder. If they act out their fantasies on my child (or I am the one that catches them with any child) it is their life at risk. As far as current classification (DSM code 302.2) it is considered a mental illness. The little respect I have for the whimsical politically correct pseudoscience of psychiatry would be diminished if they change that. If it is a mental disorder to feel more down or sad than the norm, then there is no question that a desire to have sex with children who are too young to consent is also. All of us display degrees of every mental illness. Your mild and self controlled people may not be ill, but those that cannot stop themselves from harming children definitely are.
---
If I were on the jury I would acquit the parent. Killing a child predator is the moral equivalent of protecting children.
---
Pedophilia literally means child friendship. If there is no sexual compulsion there is no problem. If you categorize people with a very mild and controllable attraction as pedophiles, and think as few as 2% of those CAUGHT having sex with children are in that category, you are disconnected from reality in a major way. If the child molester had no attraction to children they would not be molesting them. It may be true that many of those that do these acts would rape anyone they could, but to think they are not at least attracted to children is a farce.
I agree with you that there is a hysteria concerning sex crimes against children. Pretending that the problem is unrelated to pedophillia is at least as wrong in the opposite direction.
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/nov2006/pedophile1.html#Occurrence_i...
"The typical paedophile molests an average of 117 children, most of who do not report the offence."
– Source: National Institute of Mental Health, 1988.
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
In theory you are correct, but I would not allow them to teach my child. I can't say the manipulation of the perpetrator should increase their sentence...But I have a feeling I would favor harsher punishment for them than you would in any case.
My opinion is that a pedophile is simply a normal human being with an uncommon sexual attraction. If he was taught, in a supportive and safe environment, how to find safe outlets for his sexual feelings and how to concentrate on his feelings of love and empathy towards children, rather than sexual feelings, he could become an excellent teacher/mentor/whatever.
I know several pedophiles who are amazing with children. They do have sexual urges but they don't feel overwhelmed by them - they're fine with finding an outlet such as masturbation or an adult partner. Most of them felt more sexual towards children in their teens, but as they matured, they found that their urges lessened - leaving more of the emotional part. A pedophile doesn't JUST feel sexual feelings towards children, just like a heterosexual doesn't JUST have sexual feelings towards women. The heterosexual might enjoy having sex with women, but he also is interested in spending time with women, making women happier, etc. These particular pedophiles I know simply concentrated on that aspect. As a result they have many young friends who they spend time with, give attention to, mentor, etc. So many kids lack a positive adult role model - especially a male role model - in their life, and I'm really glad those pedophiles were able to not only come to terms with their sexuality, but were also able to turn that energy towards something positive.
The manipulation of the perpatrator? O.o What do you mean? And we were talking about pedophiles, weren't we? Not child molesters.
And harsher punishment for whom? O.o I don't advocate harsh punishment for, say, a pedophile caught downloading a couple images of child porn that he found randomly on the internet. I'd advocate therapy. But when it comes to people who've actually hurt children? Child molesters? Rapists? Child abusers of any kind? Er, I'm all for VERY harsh punishment. I don't care if the guy raped the child because he was attracted to that child or because he wanted a power trip, either way he committed a henious act and should put in jail for a very long time, quite possibly till the end of his hopefully miserable life.
However, IF the abuser possibly can be rehabilitated, efforts should be made to rehabilitate him. If a 16-year-old kid rapes his girlfriend, I'd want that kid to go to jail... but I'd also want him to be able to get out when he's 25, fully understanding the severity of what he did, fully regretting it, and then going on to contribute to society (perhaps to donate large amounts of money to a rape crisis center, perhaps to do major research that will help treat PTSD, etc).
On the other hand, if we're talking someone who just... maliciously abused a child... or an adult, but especially a child... fuck rehabilitation, I'd like to see them raped to death in prison.
There are some very, VERY rare cases where I feel sympathy for an abuser of an adult or child, but generally my attitude is, "Go rot in jail, and get raped while you're at it." On the other hand, not all cases are equal. And some people who once did terrible things can go on to do great things. But I'm for MUCH longer jail sentences than we currently have, much harsher punishments for abuse, etc. I simply don't believe in punishing people for their thoughts alone.
It is life threatening for the child they may rape and murder. If they act out their fantasies on my child (or I am the one that catches them with any child) it is their life at risk. As far as current classification (DSM code 302.2) it is considered a mental illness. The little respect I have for the whimsical politically correct pseudoscience of psychiatry would be diminished if they change that. If it is a mental disorder to feel more down or sad than the norm, then there is no question that a desire to have sex with children who are too young to consent is also. All of us display degrees of every mental illness. Your mild and self controlled people may not be ill, but those that cannot stop themselves from harming children definitely are.
So it heterosexuality life threatening, because a heterosexual man may rape and murder a woman? Why on earth do you think pedophiles have fantasies of things like rape or murder? O.o Why do you think a pedophile would be more likely to act on his rape fantasy than a heterosexual man would?
Homosexuality used to be in the DSM. *shrug* Why do you think attraction to young people is a disorder? I could argue that it makes evolutionary/biological sense.
I don't believe that anyone is incapable of stopping them from harming children. Pedophiles have just as much self-control over their sexual urges as everyone else. O.o
If I were on the jury I would acquit the parent. Killing a child predator is the moral equivalent of protecting children.
That's why we have a legal system. I believe legal procedures must be followed before imprisoning a person (I do not support capital punishment). Murder is murder is illegal. A child molester should be taken in by the police in a legal way, not killed by a vigilante.
If you categorize people with a very mild and controllable attraction as pedophiles, and think as few as 2% of those CAUGHT having sex with children are in that category, you are disconnected from reality in a major way. If the child molester had no attraction to children they would not be molesting them. It may be true that many of those that do these acts would rape anyone they could, but to think they are not at least attracted to children is a farce.
Check my sources. One of them is Kinsey, btw. There's three others. Look it up. Check out the studies.
A pedophile isn't someone with a very mild attraction to children, it's someone who is primarly attracted to children, or as attracted to children as to adult men/women. A child molester may be able to see a certain child as attractive. Or he might find their "purity" attractive. Or he might not give a damn about attractiveness, simply not find them UNattractive. Rapists don't go looking for the most beautiful woman. They just go after whoever's available, whoever's vulnerable, whoever's easy to silence, and that's usually kids.
"The manipulation of the perpetrator? O.o What do you mean? And we were talking about pedophiles, weren't we? Not child molesters."
The perpetrator I refer to belongs to the subset of both which overlap. I do not buy into the 2 to 10%. I am not accusing you of making it up, but other figures are also available.
---
"And harsher punishment for whom?"
Child molesters, the largest parts of which are Pedophiles. Pedophiles that work their way into positions of trust should be removed from those positions if they are discovered as well. In this case of conflicting rights, the rights of the child are the ones that matter. Protecting the children that might become future victims should be the only goal in any 'punishment' meted out, but prevention is not something that requires a guilty act. Presently, enforcing separation from the opportunity is the best preventative I am aware of.
---
"I simply don't believe in punishing people for their thoughts alone."
I agree with that whole heartedly, but banks should be within their rights to not employ known kleptomaniacs even if they have no convictions in their past. A slaughter house that fired an employee when their PETA membership was discovered should be above challenge for protecting themselves. If a police officer is discovered to be a sadist in his private life I would rather that he not be arresting anyone from that discovery forward. Certain thoughts SHOULD disqualify you from certain jobs.
---
So it heterosexuality life threatening, because a heterosexual man may rape and murder a woman?
Life itself is universally deadly. If you called heterosexuality a mental illness it would be a life threatening one since child birth kills also.
Why on earth do you think pedophiles have fantasies of things like rape or murder?
The objects of their desire are incapable of making a consensual decision to have sex with them. That means rape or manipulation are the only way they will realize the fulfillment of their desires. Once they have fulfilled those desires they are subject to terrible punishment if discovered thus there is a motive for murder present in every case. Only about a dozen rape/murders of children are discovered each year, but thousands of children go permanently missing. They do not have to fantasize it that way it is just the reality of what happens.
"Why do you think a pedophile would be more likely to act on his rape fantasy than a heterosexual man would?"
A prepubescent child can be in love with an adult, but they are not lusting after the adult. Control and power are all on the adult’s side and that makes any sexual act a form of rape. The contents of the fantasy are immaterial.
---
"Why do you think attraction to young people is a disorder?"
That is an area we agree on. I do not think being attracted to young people is insane, or even remotely rare. Pedophilia is a diagnosis that is on the more extreme end of the spectrum.
---
"I don't believe that anyone is incapable of stopping them from harming children. Pedophiles have just as much self-control over their sexual urges as everyone else."
Tell it to the victims.
---
"That's why we have a legal system. I believe legal procedures must be followed before imprisoning a person (I do not support capital punishment). Murder is murder is illegal. A child molester should be taken in by the police in a legal way, not killed by a vigilante."
The legal system includes a right to a 'jury of your peers' to protect the parent in this case.
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
"The perpetrator I refer to belongs to the subset of both which overlap. I do not buy into the 2 to 10%. I am not accusing you of making it up, but other figures are also available."
Okay, please show me other such figures. Referring to NON-OFFENDING PEDOPHILES. Don't bring me stats on child molesters because that's not what I'm talking about.
"Child molesters, the largest parts of which are Pedophiles. Pedophiles that work their way into positions of trust should be removed from those positions if they are discovered as well. In this case of conflicting rights, the rights of the child are the ones that matter. Protecting the children that might become future victims should be the only goal in any 'punishment' meted out, but prevention is not something that requires a guilty act. Presently, enforcing separation from the opportunity is the best preventative I am aware of."
The largest part of which? Source for that claim? Because the 2-10% estimate is used by police and is based on four different studies.
Are you actually suggesting that people should be punished for THOUGHTS over which they have no control?
"I agree with that whole heartedly, but banks should be within their rights to not employ known kleptomaniacs even if they have no convictions in their past. A slaughter house that fired an employee when their PETA membership was discovered should be above challenge for protecting themselves. If a police officer is discovered to be a sadist in his private life I would rather that he not be arresting anyone from that discovery forward. Certain thoughts SHOULD disqualify you from certain jobs."
None of that is remotely comparable to pedophiles. A pedophile is not like a kleptomaniac - he has control over his actions. A pedophile is not necessarily a member of an organization that promotes sex with children. A pedophile doesn't necessarily act on his feelings, unlike the sadist, who does.
In other words, you'd like pedophiles to totally hide their feelings and not get any help for them, because then they would be fired from their jobs, perhaps lose their families, their friends, be otracized by their community. Why aren't you going after people who're into BDSM? Men with rape fantasies?
"Life itself is universally deadly. If you called heterosexuality a mental illness it would be a life threatening one since child birth kills also."
Then all sexuality is "deadly" and an "illness", apparently. Interesting.
"The objects of their desire are incapable of making a consensual decision to have sex with them. That means rape or manipulation are the only way they will realize the fulfillment of their desires. Once they have fulfilled those desires they are subject to terrible punishment if discovered thus there is a motive for murder present in every case. Only about a dozen rape/murders of children are discovered each year, but thousands of children go permanently missing. They do not have to fantasize it that way it is just the reality of what happens."
Ridiculous. Plenty of men and women desire people who are unavailable to them. They don't then decide to rape the person they previously loved. Humans are somewhat more than dumb animals. We have a little something called self-control.
Thousands of children go permanently missing,
? And you quickly decide that those children must've been murdered by pedophiles? How on earth did you jump to that conclusion? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? Why would someone murder the very person he loved? Why would he rape or manipulate that person? Why do you think a pedophile is not capable of satisfying his desires with an adult or through masturbation? Do gays and lesbians in religious communities go around raping others?
"A prepubescent child can be in love with an adult, but they are not lusting after the adult. Control and power are all on the adult’s side and that makes any sexual act a form of rape. The contents of the fantasy are immaterial."
Obviously. But their fantasy is just that - a FANTASY. Many men have fantasies of rape - of ACTUAL rape, violent or coercive. Pedophiles, on the other hand, are imagining CONSENSUAL experiences with children. Note: IMAGINARY. FANTASY. Do you know the meaning of those words?
"That is an area we agree on. I do not think being attracted to young people is insane, or even remotely rare. Pedophilia is a diagnosis that is on the more extreme end of the spectrum."
Okay, so please define for me what a pedophile is, because I define a "pedophile" as it is defined in the dictionary: an adult who is attracted to children. Gasp. Heaven forbid anyone has sexual fantasies that have to stay fantasies.
"Tell it to the victims."
Tell them what? "The man who raped you didn't rape you because he was an asshole who desired power and control and because you were there, and vulnerable. He raped you because he had an UNCONTROLLABLE DESIRE. Poor thing, it's not really his fault."
Utter bullshit. Go study rape a bit. Go study the motives of rape and the typical sex lives of rapists. It has very, very little to do with sexual attraction, if anything at all.
"The legal system includes a right to a 'jury of your peers' to protect the parent in this case."
Why should the parent be protected? The parent committed murder. Murder is murder is murder no matter the motive. If it wasn't in self-defense, the parent should face the legal consequences.
"Okay, please show me other such figures. Referring to NON-OFFENDING PEDOPHILES. Don't bring me stats on child molesters because that's not what I'm talking about."
"It is estimated that only 2-10% of child molesters meet the criteria for pedophilia."
Why don't you give a figure that is not about child molesters first? The set of nonoffending pedophiles you refer to is vague and nebulous. For many obvious reasons: they hide their desires, non-offending is indistinguishable from not YET caught , and they are not well defined. The pedophile freinds you think are so great with kids may lead a secret life, you don't know. Read this, and note how many victims each molester had and how many schools cover-up. The acts continue because of secrecy.
---
"A pedophile is not like a kleptomaniac - he has control over his actions."
I agree that they do control their actions. It is what they DO if they control their actions to match their desires that is a problem.
---
"In other words, you'd like pedophiles to totally hide their feelings and not get any help for them, because then they would be fired from their jobs, perhaps lose their families, their friends, be otracized by their community."
I said IF they are known they should not be allowed to work with children. You are imagining anything else. All of the problems you list are results of being caught, not of keeping private, and avoiding temptation.
---
" 'Thousands of children go permanently missing,'
? And you quickly decide that those children must've been murdered by pedophiles? How on earth did you jump to that conclusion? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? Why would someone murder the very person he loved? Why would he rape or manipulate that person?"
I made a simple factual statement. You launch into a hysterical flurry of accusatory questions. Note these facts; 80% of abusers are close relatives, 12 DISCOVERED pedophile murder cases average per year, thousands of abducted children are never found. Draw your own conclusions.
---
"Why should the parent be protected?"
It would be a waste of time to try to explain that to a person that did not think protecting children is a high priority.
The way you are twisting simple things here is increasing my suspicion that those pedophile friends of yours have found an enabler in you. If they are in fact working arround children consider how you will feel if they are caught acting out their fantasies. You will have helped them abuse those children if you are covering up for them beforehand.
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
"Why don't you give a figure that is not about child molesters first? The set of nonoffending pedophiles you refer to is vague and nebulous. For many obvious reasons: they hide their desires, non-offending is indistinguishable from not YET caught , and they are not well defined. The pedophile freinds you think are so great with kids may lead a secret life, you don't know. Read this, and note how many victims each molester had and how many schools cover-up. The acts continue because of secrecy."
That's not possible, because as far as I know, no studies have been done on non-offending pedophiles. People aren't exactly open about their pedophilic tendencies.
2-10% of child molesters who are caught are pedophiles. It is estimated about 5-7% of the population are pedophiles, and up to 25% of men have some pedophilic tendencies. Do the math. Or find me stats that prove that pedophiles are dangerous. Of course they "could" leave a secret life. But why should I assume they do, with no proof whatsoever?
I have studied child molesters. Their victims. And their motives. And their motives have little if nothing to do with sexual attraction.
I agree that they do control their actions. It is what they DO if they control their actions to match their desires that is a problem.
I have many inappropriate desires, some of which are sexual. Why would I act on those desires simply because I have them? I act on desires that are moral. Pedophiles have a huge variety of safe and legal ways to get sexual release without ever harming a child. Ever heard of masturbation? Remarkably, MOST OF THE WORLD is able to masturbate instead of fulfilling an inappropriate fantasy. Or have you never had a strong sexual fantasy you knew would be wrong to fulfill? Do you think pedophiles have such little self-control that they HAVE to have sex with children, even though they are horrified at the thought of hurting a child and can easily get sexual release through masturbation or with an adult partner?
I said IF they are known they should not be allowed to work with children. You are imagining anything else. All of the problems you list are results of being caught, not of keeping private, and avoiding temptation.
Anyone who has hurt a child should never, ever be allowed to be unsupervised around children. Ever.
However, why on earth shouldn't a pedophile be able to speak about his desires? Should he not be able to speak to a therapist? Many are depressed and lonely because they feel unable to accept themselves. And you're saying they should not even be able to consult a doctor? Talk to their friends and family without their lives being destroyed?
"I made a simple factual statement. You launch into a hysterical flurry of accusatory questions. Note these facts; 80% of abusers are close relatives, 12 DISCOVERED pedophile murder cases average per year, thousands of abducted children are never found. Draw your own conclusions."
Based on my own research of missing children... most of those children are taken in custodial disputes. Others run away - nearly two million a year. And many are never found.
Why do you call those murders "pedophile murder cases"? Do you know for a fact that those murderers were pedophiles? How on earth would you possibly know? More correct might be to say, "On average, every year there are 12 children discovered murdered after being sexually abused." A pedophile would be rather unlikely to kill a child, since a pedophile would be far less likely to have any desire to hurt a child than your average child molester, since his motive is probably sexual, not one of power and control and sadism.
It would be a waste of time to try to explain that to a person that did not think protecting children is a high priority.
The way you are twisting simple things here is increasing my suspicion that those pedophile friends of yours have found an enabler in you. If they are in fact working arround children consider how you will feel if they are caught acting out their fantasies. You will have helped them abuse those children if you are covering up for them beforehand.
Stop making ridiculous judgements about me. My GOAL IN LIFE is to help children. I've been a peer counselor for four years, I'm studying to become a social worker, I'm doing street outreach, I'm doing documentary photography and volunteering in Cambodia this summer with kids, including child prostitutes.
I have BEEN one of those child prostitutes as a teenager. I have been raped and molested more times than I can remember. Don't EVER assume that I don't think protecting children is of utmost importance. A big part of why I fight for the rights of NON-OFFENDING pedophiles is BECAUSE I believe the witchhunt against them is harming CHILDREN.
I don't believe that my friends would ever harm children. I'm pretty sure they'd kill themselves first.
If one of them did molest a child? I'd be shocked, horrified, terribly saddened, just as I'd be if I discovered any of my friends had turned out to be capable of such a horrific act.
If I walked in on someone abusing a child (or someone of any age), it would be possible I'd kill them in order to protect that child. However, if it was not in defense of myself or another, it's murder. And illegal. And I should serve time for it, and so should everyone else. Or are you suggesting that people who have a "good reason" for MURDER should be acquitted?
The legal system includes a right to a 'jury of your peers' to protect the parent in this case.
Unless the parent caught the person in the act, there's nothing to "protect." The parent has crossed the line into being a vigilante, which is not protected by the American Justice System. There's defense, and then there's vigilantism.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Precisely.
This means they evaluate the specific case, and can decide that the law is wrong.
http://www.fija.org/
In the case of self defence there should not even be a charge.
"If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain."
Wow. This is turning into quite the cyberdebate and running up a few point totals for some of us, hm?
My opinion is that Kiota has a set of quite insightful ways to look at pedos and child molesters, ways that are backed up by informed research. She's fine-tuned her beliefs and justifies them very well. Far more, in fact, that the CJ system does or can: law enforcement is charged with enforcing laws enacted to apply to the greatest amount of citizens, covering the widest swaths of behaviors, in the broadest sets of circumstances. That's why trials and CFR's and juries are all a part of it. And witnesses. And CPS people. To bring out of the law books whatever is relevant to flesh-and-blood human beings in one specific case, which might bear almost no resemblance to another specific case.
So, kudos to Ki.
It's hard for me to support Chillbill's views on psychology / psychiatry as 'pseudoscience', probably because I have been on the staffs of a number of counselors and practitioners and assisted one of them in research for her Ph.D. degree. But, again, that's just me, and of course CB is entitled to any opinion he wants to write about, just like any of us are.
The case of Rachel Booth is instructive here. It's not over yet. Rachel is a 13-year-old formerly living