What is a pedophile?

[Phi for All]

i feel like a jackass saying you shouldnt have a child' date=' but thats what i honestly feel, so here goes:

 

you shouldnt have a child.[/quote']Are you assuming that a pedophile who has a child would be attracted to that child? Does pedophilia presuppose incest? I can see where a pedophile might be more inclined to be more forthcoming about sexual matters, even with his own child, but surely even a pedophile must realise how incest would harm his own flesh and blood?

Would you give out the IP if the police requested them? If no......then would you in a warrant.

I don't know the legalities involved. I'm sure blike would know best. Did ezekiel23 confess to an actual crime in his posts? Because while we may be repelled by his beliefs and desires, as long as he has not acted illegally he need not fear the police.

[Callipygous]

Are you assuming that a pedophile who has a child would be attracted to that child? Does pedophilia presuppose incest? I can see where a pedophile might be more inclined to be more forthcoming about sexual matters, even with his own child, but surely even a pedophile must realise how incest would harm his own flesh and blood?

 

if i told you i had a disorder that made me want to punch children in the face would you want me to have a child? surely the love i feel toward my own children would supercede my desire to punch a child in the face, but would you want to risk it?

[Bettina]

Are you assuming that a pedophile who has a child would be attracted to that child? Does pedophilia presuppose incest? I can see where a pedophile might be more inclined to be more forthcoming about sexual matters' date=' even with his own child, but surely even a pedophile must realise how incest would harm his own flesh and blood?

I don't know the legalities involved. I'm sure blike would know best. Did ezekiel23 confess to an actual crime in his posts? Because while we may be repelled by his beliefs and desires, as long as he has not acted illegally he need not fear the police.[/quote']

 

I was just wondering what would happen if the police wanted IP's...and I know someone admitted to having child porn....anyway..I was just curious.

 

Also, the word incest could just be another word to a pedophile, at least to me. I've heard of incest with non pedophiles, so I cannot imagine what a pedo would do. On the other hand, who knows, maybe seeing there own flesh and blood might actually help them. I just don't know.

 

Bettina

[ezekiel23]

nobody admitted to having child porn, and no i never admitted to any crimes, because I've never committed any. Just to cover myself.

[Phi for All]

if i told you i had a disorder that made me want to punch children in the face would you want me to have a child?

That's a bit of a strawman. You're adding an element of violence into the analogy that wasn't there before. While I wouldn't discount incest as a possibility since it could happen to a non-pedophile, I don't think they would necessarily be more predisposed. Something changes in most people when they have children.

I was just wondering what would happen if the police wanted IP's...and I know someone admitted to having child porn....anyway..I was just curious.

I suppose if the police figured they could make a case for child porn they might be able to subpoena IP addresses as evidence. It would have to go beyond simple nudity, I'm sure.

 

GAH!

[Callipygous]

That's a bit of a strawman. You're adding an element of violence into the analogy that wasn't there before. While I wouldn't discount incest as a possibility since it could happen to a non-pedophile, I don't think they would necessarily be more predisposed. Something changes in most people when they have children.

 

whats wrong with adding violence to the analogy? are you saying hitting a child is worse than sexually molesting them?

 

so you dont think a person who is attracted to children is more predisposed to being attracted to their own child than a person who isnt attracted to children at all?

 

yeah, something changes in people when they have children, but not normally their sexual orientation.

 

why would you risk that? what if he was attracted to them, what with them being the beautiful god sent little angles pedophiles describe them as, and slipped up just once?

[SoFarAway]

This is quite a long thread, and I see some constructive discussion has taken place.

 

But some of the discussion appears to be unobjective, unproductive, and/or spurred by personal offense. This is an important issue, and discussing it in a sensible manner has great potential for good. So please, take a few deep breaths and some time to think before replying.

 

Now, I think we can all agree that pedophiles tend to be isolated/stigmatized, emotionally, socially, etc. Hatred for pedophiles seems to be almost universal. (I think a discussion on the reasons for this would be interesting, but this is probably not the proper time for that.) Also, can we not agree that this isolation, especially when experienced for long time periods as in the pedophile's case, is almost certainly psychologically damaging? Would this ostracization and resulting psychological damage not encourage the pedophile to deviate more and more from society and become embittered toward it? I think the previous two questions can logically be answered in the affirmative.* I think many pedophiles are estranged from society and thus more likely to act out in reckless, hurtful ways. Before anyone misinterprets this, let me clarify that I am arguing in this paragraph that the stigmatization of pedophiles has ill effects and am in no way excusing the actions of those who harm children.

 

Okay, now let's envision a society in which pedophilia** was a normal, accepted inclination. Let's imagine that pedophiles were not stigmatized and that they could be totally open about who/what they were. I am not talking about a change in AoC laws or anything like that here, merely a change in society's attitude. This environment would be much more amicable to pedophiles and thus far less encouraging of harmful deviance. Because of this, I think that children would be much safer.

 

So, I contend that the de-stigmatization of pedophiles would be beneficial and that such an atmosphere would be better than the current state of things. I realize my argument is very much philosophical, and I am content with that as I think the reasoning can stand alone. I hope the readers will carefully consider my words, and I look forward to objective replies.

 

(I realize this isn't entirely new ground for this thread. It's just something I'd like to see receive some focused discussion.)

 

*This seems intuitive to me, but if anyone disagrees, I'm willing to elaborate on my reasoning.

**When I use the word "pedophile" or one of its variants, I am referring to an attraction, not necessarily a behavior.

[Bettina]

This is quite a long thread' date=' and I see some constructive discussion has taken place.

 

But some of the discussion appears to be unobjective, unproductive, and/or spurred by personal offense. This is an important issue, and discussing it in a sensible manner has great potential for good. So please, take a few deep breaths and some time to think before replying.

 

Now, I think we can all agree that pedophiles tend to be isolated/stigmatized, emotionally, socially, etc. Hatred for pedophiles seems to be almost universal. (I think a discussion on the reasons for this would be interesting, but this is probably not the proper time for that.) Also, can we not agree that this isolation, especially when experienced for long time periods as in the pedophile's case, is almost certainly psychologically damaging? Would this ostracization and resulting psychological damage not encourage the pedophile to deviate more and more from society and become embittered toward it? I think the previous two questions can logically be answered in the affirmative.* I think many peophiles are estranged from society and thus more likely to act out in reckless, hurtful ways. Before anyone misinterprets this, let me clarify that I am arguing in this paragraph that the stigmatization of pedophiles has ill effects and am in no way excusing the actions of those who harm children.

 

Okay, now let's envision a society in which pedophilia** was a normal, accepted inclination. Let's imagine that pedophiles were not stigmatized and that they could be totally open about who/what they were. I am not talking about a change in AoC laws or anything like that here, merely a change in society's attitude. This environment would be much more amicable to pedophiles and thus far less encouraging of harmful deviance. Because of this, I think that children would be much safer.

 

So, I contend that the de-stigmatization of pedophiles would be beneficial and that such an atmosphere would be better than the current state of things. I realize my argument is very much philosophical, and I am content with that as I think the reasoning can stand alone. I hope the readers will carefully consider my words, and I look forward to objective replies.

 

(I realize this isn't entirely new ground for this thread. It's just something I'd like to see receive some focused discussion.)

 

*This seems intuitive to me, but if anyone disagrees, I'm willing to elaborate on my reasoning.

**When I use the word "pedophile" or one of its variants, I am referring to an attraction, not necessarily a behavior.

 

I carefully considered them and put them in the trash. First, welcome to the BB. Second, are you a pedohile too?...just asking nice.

 

Bettina

[Bettina]

whats wrong with adding violence to the analogy? are you saying hitting a child is worse than sexually molesting them?

 

so you dont think a person who is attracted to children is more predisposed to being attracted to their own child than a person who isnt attracted to children at all?

 

yeah' date=' something changes in people when they have children, but not normally their sexual orientation.

 

why would you risk that? what if he was attracted to them, what with them being the beautiful god sent little angles pedophiles describe them as, and slipped up just once?[/quote']

 

Because physical violence, whether it was toward children or adults, was not part of the thread which I still wish was closed.

 

Were talking about a middle aged Pedophile who wants children to adore and love him for the sole purpose of having a loving and sexual relationship with the boy. He needs to feed him a good line coupled with toys maybe, so he can have continuous sex with them. He can't do that with violence. He harms the child mentally, not physically.

 

Bettina

[Callipygous]

Because physical violence' date=' whether it was toward children or adults, was not part of the thread which I still wish was closed.

 

Were talking about a middle aged Pedophile who wants children to adore and love him for the sole purpose of having a loving and sexual relationship with the boy. He needs to feed him a good line coupled with toys maybe, so he can have continuous sex with them. He can't do that with violence. He harms the child mentally, not physically.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

yeah, im not saying this guy is violent toward children...

 

im saying neither one of them is one that you want around children. its an analogy, if i used the exact same situation it wouldnt be an analogy, it would be redundant.

[Coral Rhedd]

I am only going to comment a bit here on pedophiles having children and then I will come back to this thread and try to address Merle's concerns in more depth.

 

There seem to be pedophiles who molest their own children and pedophiles who do not.

 

No links yet. Just a brief description off the top of my head from what I have studied. Many pedophiles who are able to maintain a relationship with women and marry and have children, do not molest their own children. I think the problem often lies in the elephant in the room, the problems in the marriage relationship that do not get addressed. In other words, secrets ruin communication in relationships. However, many marriages have uncomfortable secrets.

 

There are other pedophiles, who seek out single mothers as partners or friends for the main purpose of getting closer to their children so that they can groom the children for molestation. They are really interested in kids and not women. These guys cause lots of damage. Their average number of victims is about 70 over a career of molestation. These are fixated offenders.

 

Then there are regressed offenders, whose primary interest is women, but who will offend against children in certain circumstances. These guys will definitely molest their own children. Often they molest daughters. It is not unusual to find a family of daughters in which each daughter has been molested in turn and told to keep the secret. When they get older they tell and are often quite surprised to find out that their sisters were victimized as well.

 

Further, among types that may seem quite heterosexual are men that I can only think of as brutalizers. They are strongly sociopathic and will batter, rape, and humiliate their wives and all their children male or female. They often force their children into having sex with each other. Their spouses are often incredibly cowed.

 

We would be making a mistake to think that there is generally only one variety of sex offender.

 

If someone who characterizes himself as a pedophile and never rapes, fondles, or seduces children becomes a parent, he may be no better or no worse than lots of people who become parents.

 

However, from reading the views of pedophiles in this thread -- many of whom seem quite young -- it seems that some of them are saying that sexual activity short of rape with children should be permitted. If that is one's belief, then frankly I think that person lacks control and is full of rationalizations for behavior that is ultimately harmful to children. It don't think those people are good candidates for parenthood.

 

Pedophilia is very difficult to treat and aversion therapy has had only small success. once someone with a pedophile mindset reaches puberty and begins fantasizing or acting out their inclinations, treatment becomes difficult.

 

The advantage of treatment for children who behave in a sexually aggressive manner -- and they will do this as young as first grade to their classmates -- is that therapy can change the outcome. This is why teachers and counselors try to identify these children at risk. These are almost always children who have suffered multiple abuses.

[Phi for All]

whats wrong with adding violence to the analogy?

Because it wasn't part of what I was asking you about. You added a bit of misleading vividness to strengthen a position you didn't have before. You are asking me to knock down a strawman of your making instead of answering my original question.

 

You should be careful about what you are denying to others based on what they may have a predilection for. Attraction is not illegal. Are you advocating differently?

[Callipygous]

Because it wasn't part of what I was asking you about. You added a bit of misleading vividness to strengthen a position you didn't have before. You are asking me to knock down a strawman of your making instead of answering my original question.

 

the analogy was the best way i know of to answer your question. take your thoughts toward my "strawman" and apply them to the original question and you have my answer. its a way of conveying the thought when i cant come up with the actual words to state it.

 

You should be careful about what you are denying to others based on what they may have a predilection for. Attraction is not illegal. Are you advocating differently?

 

i know, i said i felt like a jackass saying it... its just how i feel, i never said it was fair. no, attraction is not illegal, nor do i think it should be. i also dont think we should count on wolves to protect our flocks.

[GreenDestiny]

I think I'm going to respond to this posting bottom up.

 

I would live out my entire life without hurting one single kid' date=' and no one would have been the wiser.

[/quote']

 

Yep, I agree with you here.

 

and would hide it from everyone no matter how hard it would be.

 

Well, actually that's what I'm doing, although I'm somewhat forced to do it. Well, to be absolutely correct, I've come out to three online friends (two of them I've also met in real life) whose reactions were very positive. But one of them is gay and the other two are rather liberal, so I expected them to react that way. Not to say that it was easy, but otherwise I probably wouldn't have done it. In the end they didn't have a big problem with it, because they know me quite well and know I would never hurt a child.

 

If I were a pedophile, I would get help for my sickness

 

So what exactly would you do? Since pedophilia is not simply a disease you cannot really cure it. If someone has this attraction it's as difficult to turn him into a heterosexual as it would be to turn you into a lesbian. So what then? Castration? Yeah right... that sounds reasonable.

 

I'm glad I live in a country that looks upon the pedophile for what they really are. A sick individual who is immoral, not only to the church, but to Mothers, Fathers, and the rest of civilization too.

 

You know it's really sad that you seemingly you can't overcome your prejudices. Maybe if a personal friend of you came out as a pedophile it would help... but you are generalizing things all the time and always seem to be on the verge of becoming offensive.

 

I was just wondering what would happen if the police wanted IP's...and I know someone admitted to having child porn....anyway..I was just curious.

 

If you had followed this thread attentively, you would have noticed that no one claimed such a thing. This has been discussed some pages back.

[GreenDestiny]

Then there are regressed offenders' date=' whose primary interest is women, but who will offend against children in certain circumstances. These guys will definitely molest their own children. Often they molest daughters. It is not unusual to find a family of daughters in which each daughter has been molested in turn and told to keep the secret. When they get older they tell and are often quite surprised to find out that their sisters were victimized as well.

 

Further, among types that may seem quite heterosexual are men that I can only think of as brutalizers. They are strongly sociopathic and will batter, rape, and humiliate their wives and all their children male or female. They often force their children into having sex with each other. Their spouses are often incredibly cowed.

 

We would be making a mistake to think that there is generally only one variety of sex offender.

[/quote']

 

Yes, that's true. And I'm also doubtful if all of these different types are really pedophiles. In posting #455 I already quoted from a magazine that only 5% of all child molesters are indeed really pedophiles. The cases you mentioned above don't sound like such to me anyway.

 

There are often cases where children are being abused by their own father - AFAIK in such cases this person is often a normal hetereosexual who acts out the abuse for whatever other reasons...

[GreenDestiny]

I just found some references for it on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

 

The percentage of pedophile perpetrators in cases of child sexual abuse is estimated to be 2 to 10 percent (Kinsey-Report, Lautmann, Brongersma, Groth). Abuse is mainly a phenomenon of heterosexual and homosexual orientation. Statistics from the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm "5 percent of sex offenders rearrested for another sex crime within 3 years of prison release") indicate that while sex offenders in general reoffend 5.3 percent of the time, child molesters reoffend only 3.3 percent of the time (though the latter statistic only counts child sexual abuse as opposed to all sex crimes).

 

Most cases of father-daughter incest are believed to involve fathers who are situational offenders, rather than pedophiles. Some have argued that these cases are triggered by the withdrawal of the mother from the family, often due to physical or mental illness.

 

The following paragraph sounds interesting as well:

A person is not necessarily a pedophile simply because he can be sexually aroused by children; rather, a pedophile is defined as someone whose primary sexual attraction is toward children. There is evidence that at least a quarter of all adult men may have feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children (Freund & Costell 1970, Hall et al. 1995, Quinsey et al. 1975). Note that pedophilia can be diagnosed solely in the presence of fantasies or sexual urges on the subject's part — it need not involve sexual acts with children.

 

So at least sexual attraction to kids in some way seems not to be completely unnatural.

[Phi for All]

its a way of conveying the thought when i cant come up with the actual words to state it.

 

...

 

i also dont think we should count on wolves to protect our flocks.

I think those are great words to state it.

 

I completely agree with your feelings. We just have to be careful what we advocate as a solution. Screening men for a predilection towards pedophilia before allowing them to procreate sounds like a highly corruptible system.

[BenSon]

I don't realy know what part of the of the convo to quote but this is refering to the discussion on weather pedophilies should be alowed to have children. This has been refering to whether pedophiles will be more likely to abuse their children over homosexual or hetrosexual parents. Someone already posted a statistic saying it was equal (can't remember who).

What i would be very worried about is letting a pedophile adopt a child. It appears to me that some of the pedophiles on this site value a mentoring/father relationship with boys that will hopefully turn into a sexual relationship. Or in another case (I think it was ezikiel) would not rule out having a sex with a child if the oppertunity came up and the feelings were reciprocated.

With these two issues i would be against letting a pedophile adopt a child because it is a mntoring/fathering relationship there is no blood relation and because they would live in the same house (possibley alone) the oppertunity to molest a child without being caught would be heightened, not to mention the possibility of mistaking the childs feeling for their father for something else.

Taking this into acount not only would i not want pedophiles to have children of their own but also not to adopt. I dont know how this would be screened though because how would you tell if it is a pedophile adopting or a normal person. just my 2c

 

~Scott

[YT2095]

Would you give out the IP if the police requested them? If no......then would you in a warrant. I'll be willing to bet thats what he is afraid of...the police.

 

Bettina

 

if the police had a warrant, we`de have no choice!

however this really wouldn`t become an issue, as anyone that cares to look at the Who`s Online page could find out anyway.

[Dak]

you cant find out someones IP from the whos online page.

 

so you dont think a person who is attracted to children is more predisposed to being attracted to their own child than a person who isnt attracted to children at all?

 

yeah' date=' something changes in people when they have children, but not normally their sexual orientation.[/quote']i dunno... im attrackted to fully grown women, but if i had a 20 year old daughter, i wouldnt sleep with her.

 

Also, can we not agree that this isolation, especially when experienced for long time periods as in the pedophile's case, is almost certainly psychologically damaging? Would this ostracization and resulting psychological damage not encourage the pedophile to deviate more and more from society and become embittered toward it? I think the previous two questions can logically be answered in the affirmative.

i believe that, in reguards to drug use, its an accepted fact that to help people deal with their addiction, they must first admit it - both to themselves and to people who can help them - and that this is aided by removing the stigma attached to drug-dependance. same with stds - the less stigma attached, the less disinclined the aflictee is to seek help and thus the less damage is done.

 

i can see no reason why removing societys instinctive hatred of non-practacing paedophiles would do anything other than lead to less offences being commited.

[5614]

Wow, 2 days and over 150 posts!

 

Bettina: It is standard advice that people should talk about their problems, it's useless letting all your feelings bottle up inside you, esp. in the case of a paedophile who's feelings could lead to bad actions. With that in mind I'd say that coming to post on a forum is not such a bad thing.

 

Paedophile/child thing: Dak just pointed out something interesting, that an adult who had adult children wouldn't be tempted to have sex with them. In that respect could paedophiles not have an urge to have sex with their children? At the same time I really would not like to see a paedophile having a child. Being alone with children for that amount of time, saying goodnight to them every night, having them love you (as a father), it's just not a risk worth taking. Although seemingly a few individuals claim to be able to resist temptation...

 

GreenDestiny: Admitedly people are prejudice against paedophiles, but only in the same way that people are prejudice against Hitler (read on). Now I'd really rather not bring him into it but it seems a good example. Hitler is too bad for word to describe and (talking about current times) most people agree that he was totaly evil. Yet there are still a few people who agree with his views and act upon them, (they're not common but appear in the news sometimes after destroying Jewish graveyards, ruining property belonging to ethnic minorities etc.) Now don't get me wrong, I am NOT in any way at all associating paedophiles to Hitler, more pointing out that; yes the majority of people are prejudice against paedophiles and yes there are a few who are for it but at the end of the day paedophilia is totaly immoral and consequently the majority of people will be prejudice against it.

 

however this really wouldn`t become an issue, as anyone that cares to look at the Who`s Online page could find out anyway.

That's mod/admin only, don't you remember the whole debate thingy we had?!?!

[Merle Noir]

Are you assuming that a pedophile who has a child would be attracted to that child? Does pedophilia presuppose incest? I can see where a pedophile might be more inclined to be more forthcoming about sexual matters' date=' even with his own child, but surely even a pedophile must realise how incest would harm his own flesh and blood?

[/quote']

 

Well hard to say with my own child since I don't have one but I have rarely ever felt any attraction towards my Nephew.. The only similarity is that once I get to know a child the sexual attraction becomes less and he becomes just a friend with very little sexual desire attached to the relationship. So since my Nephew, and presumably any child I would have excluding adoption, I have or would know from before they get to an age that I would find them sexually attractive the sexual aspect is not really there. Other Pedophiles that have seen a photograph of my nephew say he's good looking so I'd have to say its not that he's just not attractive.

[Dak]

The only similarity is that once I get to know a child the sexual attraction becomes less and he becomes just a friend with very little sexual desire attached to the relationship.

whys that?

[Sayonara]

Another thing that scares me is the amount of views this thread has recieved in the short time it has been here. I wonder if it is just curiosity' date=' or are there a lot more pedophiles lurking around than I think.

 

Bettina[/quote']

Possibly it's just because it's a controversial topic that hasn't been done on here 13,492 times before.

[GreenDestiny]

GreenDestiny: Admitedly people are prejudice against paedophiles' date=' but only in the same way that people are prejudice against Hitler [i'](read on)[/i]. Now I'd really rather not bring him into it but it seems a good example. Hitler is too bad for word to describe and (talking about current times) most people agree that he was totaly evil. Yet there are still a few people who agree with his views and act upon them, (they're not common but appear in the news sometimes after destroying Jewish graveyards, ruining property belonging to ethnic minorities etc.) Now don't get me wrong, I am NOT in any way at all associating paedophiles to Hitler, more pointing out that; yes the majority of people are prejudice against paedophiles and yes there are a few who are for it but at the end of the day paedophilia is totaly immoral and consequently the majority of people will be prejudice against it.

 

Well, but the problem with this analogy is that pedophilia is an attraction and that for itself cannot really be immoral. On the other hand thinking all foreign people are inferior and destroying Jewish graveyards or beating people up, destroying property belonging to minorities, etc. IS indeed immoral. At least there are actual actions involved.

 

Actually, thinking of pedophiles as inferior human beings could far better be compared to Nazis thinking Jews or foreigners are inferior to them, but I don't really want to do that (as it is sometimes done), because that's close to comparing pedophiles to the victims of the Nazis - but the acts done in the Third Reich were so terrible that it would be somewhat disrespectful to their victims to compare that with something from today, because what happened back then was far worse.