Paedophiles - where do they come from?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by gorillasgocrazy, Apr 24, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gorillasgocrazy Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    Whenever the topic of Paedophilia crops up in conversation, usually due to someone mentioning a news-bite they've seen/heard recently, people generally seem to never wish to engage the topic but merely ignore it or just scream about violent actions that should be taken to purge society of 'paedophiles', though I could be wrong.

    I feel that there is partly the possibility that people are afraid to broach the topic in any other way than slamming paedophiles, as there is such an extreme taboo in place against paedophilia that if one questions the mainstream opinion, that person might feel that they might be seen to empathise or raise doubts about themselves (subtle though they maybe).
    (quite funnily demonstarted in Monkey Dust, the Paedofinder General - can be seen on youtube)

    Firstly:
    The point of me starting this thread is that after having watched this TV episode on bbciplayer; Louis_Theroux_A_Place_for_Paedophiles (free to watch) about a massive mental hospital in the middle of the desert, where paedophiles are kept against the law after completing their prison sentences,
    I was interested to see what peoples views are on this solution or any other possibilities.

    Secondly:
    To get some scientific (whether it be biological, psychological, sociological etc...) points of view on the causes of paedophilia. Whether they be early childhood experiences of molestation by the paedophile themselves, mental imbalances, the possibility that paedophilia is no different from hetero or homosexuality but just on a different end of the spectrum of sexuality (that happens to have strongly adverse affects on those that are technically innocent), criminals or are they just "evil".

    note: this thread has been posted to look at paedophilia in a scientific context and not to provide a platform for people to mouth-off or post obscene images.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You would first have to define what you mean by paedophile.

    Once this is done, it would be easier to answer your question.

    As to your other question, what to do with this term you have used, my answer is: would they be harmful to the population if left free to the extent that they should be confined or not?

    If they would be this harmful, they shouldn't be allowed to be free. If not, they should be; or atleast given some freedoms (things like probation are meant to monitor people who society deems are potential threats due to past actions, but not so threatening that they must be confined).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    From: http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/male-sex-offenders.html

    The fixated offender has a primary sexual orientation towards children, especially male children; these sex offenders have commonly been called pedophiles. The typical pedophile is attracted to children both physically and emotionally. These offenders get a sense of power, control and omnipotence in their relationships with children.

    The regressed offender is a non-pedophile molester. These male sex offenders are men who have achieved normal adult heterosexual functioning but who, in a time of crisis and stress, may seek out sexual activity with children and youth, in particular female children. They are not as compulsive or as demanding as pedophiles, but as incest offenders they may persist in having sexual activity with their children from an early age into adolescence (Wiehe, 1998, p. 652).

    The child rapist uses violence and assault to involve children. This group of sex offenders is categorized as the angry rapist, the power rapist or the sadistic rapist (The Family Violence Project, 1990, p. 1.333).

    It is important to note that not all child molesters are driven by a sexual attraction to children (Lanning, 1992, p. 34).

    It is also important to note that many sex offenders have characteristics of both the fixated and regressed offender.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Mod Note:

    Be extremely careful where you take this topic, it's not just one of controversy but is a powder keg considering recent discussions on this subject in these forums. The Moderation/Administration has the Right and are obligated to use their powers should this topic degrade or persons representing views prove to be of questionable character.
     
  8. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Would it be improper to suggest that such beings potentilal harm to society outweighs their own right to live?

    I'm sorry, we're talking about where they come from.

    I'm more interested in how to make them go.
     
  9. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    Got a link?

    I'm of the opinion that human sexuality can't really be "fixed." Can't make gays straight. Can't make straights gay. Can't make child sex offenders not be child sex offenders. Studies agree with me.

    I think my responsibility in managing my own sexuality as an adult means having sex with people who can truly consent to it. A teenager can't really consent to me. I can pretty much manipulate someone that young into bed, as can most adults. Doesn't mean I'm not attracted to teenagers. It means I shouldn't manipulate minors for my own gain.

    I think fantasy is a safe way to live out stuff. Look, if my partner comes to me and says he has fantasies about doing twelve year olds but will NEVER touch a kid or look at child porn, but he wants to incorporate that fantasy into our sex life, I think that's a reasonable way to manage those feelings. If I catch a partner doing anything to exploit a child, it's over.

    I want sex offenders away from society. When you cross that line, you forfeit your freedom.

    I think it's a genetic predisposition like heterosexuality or homosexuality that probably functions something like epigenetics: It's triggered by events. Most sex offenders are victims. It normally runs in families. Sexual attraction for children doesn't really seem to have any safe or sane biological basis.
     
  10. gorillasgocrazy Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    a person who has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children.

    true say, doing their time and staying on extended probation seems most logical to me too
    however there are three elements all being hypocritically roled into one in our society:
    1. saying that they are criminals and locking them up and being horrified at their actions. but then you must also release them at the end of their sentence with probation.
    2. placing them in a mental hospital until proven that they are curable, but previous prison sentence cannot then be done, and society should then not mock someone who is mentally ill, but try and help them.

    I would possibly say that paedophiles are inherently like other people but just so happen to be sexually attracted to children instead of men, women or animals, a sexual deviation that is not inherently wrong, it just is.
    However, as we all live in society together, they must act responsibly and appreciate that a line must be drawn; 14, 16, 18yrs (depending where you are), at which it is irresponsible and harmful to society for them to fulfill their urges. Therefore for them to do so is criminal and so they must face the legal consequences.

    However when I looked at the situation in paedo-hospital, it reminded me of those evangelical christian places that claim to cure homosexuality crossed with a prison. which begs the fact that maybe our view of paedophilia is backward. Is it a unlucky sexual-inclination that can lead to irresponsible actions that will have to be punished accordingly? Or a sexual perversion that requires therapy? or are they just bad people that should be put in prison?

    the reasons these questions have interested me is that they seem to dig at the foundations of larger questions; whether the prison system is the right solution to criminality? How is sexual-preference determined?
     
  11. gorillasgocrazy Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    i can't seem to post websites or links, though if you just put bbciplayer into google, then just search louis theroux once your on the site, and you should be able to watch it straight away.
     
  12. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    "There are many ways to skin a cat" - anon

    Simply there is no single answer, every individual paedophile probably has a unique reasoning for why they are the way they are. Just like trying to guess what the "triggers" are, again there is probably many different triggers.

    There will never be a definitive answer, and you'll be left with a term that's used much like "Schizophrenia" which isn't actually one individual mental illness but a term for many different types.

    Paedophilia is obviously a Mental Illness considering that it's a reaction that occurs in the brain, through what ever stimuli that triggers it. It's just a shame that people think that they should be treated the same as someone that's suffered a Psychotic Episode, considering that they didn't stem from the same roots and the person who suffered the Psychotic Episode hasn't necessary broken any laws or done anything ethically immoral.

    The only true way a Paedophile can lose their urges would be over years of pharmacological therapy (A proverbial lobotomy in a pill.) as at the end of the chemical course, there brain will have to relearn the most basic of tasks. The problem here however is if that Paedophile is remorseful or not? If they accept treatment and want to change, then eventually it will work. If however they want to hang on to their dark fantasies, then no matter how many pills they take, they will never be cured.
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Depending on how you are defining paedophilia, neither has someone who can be labelled a paedophile. Because the term paedophilia and pedophile are so broad, discussing the issue isn't going to get very far until you apply a particular definition.


    In one story I heard of a man who was attracted to minors, this was apparently not the case; that is, no pill required. The real question, ofcourse, is whether attraction to minors itself is an illness. It's been dealt with in this forum before as you know full well, and your solution was to ban the discussion. A solution, to be sure, but not a very empirical one.


    Remorseful for what? Under some definitions, a paedophile doesn't need to break any laws; they only need to be attracted to minors. Sometimes they can even be minors themselves.


    Again with a subjective term labelling a vague concept. What fantasies did you have in mind? And who defines what is 'dark' or 'good' here? You? This is the problem here. This discussion can only work if it's using scientific principles; when appeals to prejudice are made, especially by a high ranking moderator, the discussion can't really go anywhere.
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    A person? Sexual interaction between a person and a minor may be legal in some circumstances (generally if the age difference isn't that great). Are you including them? Furthermore, who's definition of "minor" are you using?

    Furthermore, I think we should differentiate between people who don't care about breaking the law and people who do.


    I agree with that assessment (not inherently wrong bit), but you should also consider yet another factor, one that at times gets overlooked in the gay/straight issue as well; what of people who are not only attracted to minors but can be attracted to adults as well? The way I believe it was put in a psychiatric manual is essentially, if no one is being harmed (including the person with the attraction), it's not an illness. The irony is that because of much of society's condemnation of this attraction, the harm can actually be inflicted by said society, the therapist can then say that the patient suffers harm and then (presto), mental illness. I would contend that the real issue here is not age per se; but rather, are minors inherently unnattractive to adults? Minors frequently don't think so at any rate, so why should adults? I remember a comedian once saying sarcastically, "Oh no, I'm not attracted to teens" and then following up with "Ofcourse I'm attracted to teens! That's why they had to put a law against it", and yes, it did get some laughs.


    So you cross a state or country line and suddenly, it becomes harmful to be with someone below x age? I think that the age of consent differential amoung countries, not to mention the 'close in age' exemptions are perhaps the best example of how controversial this issue still is. I have long argued, with people of various viewpoints, that the solution is to phase out the idea that informed consent should be based on what age you are but instead be focused on whether the individual is actually properly informed.



    I think your larger questions are quite good; I personally believe that everyone who is a true danger to society is by definition sick; thus mental hospitals, in my view, makes much more sense then prisons. Mental hospitals, ofcourse, are generally more expensive, however. To the issue of price, there is yet another darker issue, an issue that I believe has come up in countries where the death penalty has been abolished; some prisoners would rather be put to death then to simply languish. Honestly, if prison conditions are so bad and there simply isn't the money to make them any better, I firmly believe that assisted suicide should be allowed for such prisoners.
     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I once came across a site titled "Adult Origin". The reason I bring it up is because it got me thinking of something; all adults were originally children. And seriously, what would most people find attractive? A human minor or a different species? Furthermore, minors grow up to be adults; they don't magically become 'adults' when they hit a certain age, it's a learning curve. Which is why many teens are not only sexual and flirtatious amoung their own age group (and get in trouble for it at times, as has been reported previously in sci forums in regards to sexting), but sometimes cross over the legal divide to older people. Older people, in turn, are frequently not immune to advances from younger people, although in today's society, you'd have to be in a muslim country, where, unfortunately, they have some rather unhealthy rules about how females are seen (frequently as property), to publicly go any further then a bit of flirting.
     
  16. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Scott,

    There are no excuses when it comes to governance. If the law of the land states a particular age, then their is no deviation, no middle ground... It is Law.

    The only potential grounds that someone breaking a law could attempt to claim is that they didn't know it was wrong, however considering the fact that it's constantly pressed and identified as being wrong means there is no excuses. (At least not for the rational mind)
     
  17. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    Because prepubescent children are not ready for sex with adults.

    There has to be a legally defined line because young people are so easy to manipulate. Adults are even easy to manipulate a lot of times, but very young people who are naive and inexperienced and lack the ability to even make the choice of joining the military, voting, etc., is NOT ready for sex with an adult.

    I substitute. Not to brag, but I know I could persuade a good number of the male students to have unprotected sex with me, more than I could of guys 20 to 50. They're vulnerable and they're not comfortable telling an adult, especially a young woman who is paying a lot of attention to them, no. There's a need for legal recourse so adults don't exploit sexually mature minors.
     
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    To be sure, it is law. What I'm asking is if the law is necessarily moral. Have you read the book Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine? I mentioned it in previous postings in previous threads in sci forums, along with some very good excerpts. She gets into the horrors that our society has perpetrated in regards to the sexuality, generally to minors themselves. Although she doesn't mention it in the book, Judith Levine herself was involved in a relationship with an adult when she was a teen and found it to be beneficial.


    You seem to be of the belief that if x amount of people say something is wrong then it is, by definition, wrong. I'm sure those in the inquisition felt the same way. Or Hitler's Germany. Or Bush Administration's "War on Terror" doctrines (on torture, say). Or the abstinence education only movement. But no, it didn't make them right.

    In order to determine what's right for a society, I believe that one must first determine the best course of action for said society. Is it best that we determine who is informed enough to consent to x or y sexual activity based on an arbitrary age that changes from state to state and country to country, and has a mighty tangle of sub laws that deal with not only the nature of the sexual activity in question but also with exemptions of 'close in age' partners, or is it best to instead focus on whether the parties involved are likely to benefit from the sexual interaction?
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I made no mention of "prepubescent children". I suggest you don't either, unless you would like this thread closed, in which case, I advise you to do so, preferably in a large sized font. I mentioned minors.


    I agree completely. The line should whether the sexual interaction is likely to be harmful or beneficial.


    By putting these things in extremes, I admit that you have a stronger argument. You may have noticed, however, that society as a whole generally doesn't deal with the black and white cases; the only reason we hear of so many is because the world population is around 6 billion people; there are bound to be a few extreme cases in such a large group. It's the grey areas where my argument shines. You speak of "very young people" and "sex". What of young people in general and sexual activities? Is it fair that in one state or country, a couple can be happy while in another one or both of the people in questioned are censured?


    I agree completely. But I have a strong feeling that you're avoiding a very important issue here. Are you saying that none of those male students would want to engage in sexual activities with you even without your provocation? Perhaps some already fantasize about you. Perhaps some have even made flirtatious comments. Saying that they're only in jest disguises the fact that jests can frequently advance to more serious levels, if given the proper environment in which to do so. I certainly don't think that we live in such an environment today, but the real question I'm getting at is, is this the way we want to stay? In a climate where a teacher can teach a student everything but what they most want and sometimes even need to learn about? Dossie Easton, one of the authors of The Ethical Slut, in a recent interview with Marty Beckerman from the Daily Beast, said:
    We need better sex education, better relationship education.

    She's not speaking of minors specifically, but I certainly think they should be included in this.
     
  20. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    Word.

    Oh, fuck yes, it differs. And it should. A 16 year old girl in Tennessee is pretty different from a 16 year old girl in California, in general. Life expectancy, maturity, culture, all of these things really have an effect on when you're ready for sex.

    I think you're missing the issue: Just because they're led by their dicks and come onto me sometimes doesn't mean it's ethical for me to sleep with them. These guys aren't old enough to do a lot of things, include decide whether or not they're ready to have some sort of equality in a sexual relationship with an adult.

    My point is, the most important part of sex is assuring equality. With two people with different legal statuses, it's not possible.
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    I agree, but there are a few issues here: first of all, while it may be comforting to deal in generalities, not everyone fits the bill and I think that issues such as jail time shouldn't be based on statistics, don't you? Secondly, what if a 16 year old California couple migrate from California and settle in Tennesee; in other words, what if they're mature and yet, because of where they happen to be living at the time, they are barred from engaging in certain sexual activities? Is this fair? Don't you think it'd be better to test for maturity instead of where a person happens to be living?


    I think there are 2 issues here; one is if they're ready to engage in an illegal relationship. My guess is, that's a negative. Let's imagine, for a moment, a different world, however, where it wouldn't be illegal, or even societally frowned upon. In such a scenario, don't you think that it would be better for them to learn about sexuality from someone who knows the ropes then from someone who doesn't?


    I agree. Which is why I am questioning the fairness of the laws in question, not whether they should be broken.
     
  22. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    You tend to neglect that the law has been written and rewritten over the decades purely for that reason, and no matter that time has passed, it still stands that it's Illegal. There are no excuses and the argument you find yourself compelled to rally behind is going to be fruitless.

    Just because you in your infancy in comparison to the law doesn't understand the implications, doesn't mean the implications haven't been understood over time.
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I took a look at that Paedofinder General episode of Monkey Dust; quite good. I really liked this bit:
    "Under the principles of English Law, every man is innocent, until speculated guilty", laugh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page