Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester

[Checkmite]

Sure. But in the absence of said numbers, there's no objective conclusion, which is what I'm looking for.

There can be an objective conclusion to the larger question; it simply may be that the data point you specifically have been asking for isn't the thing that leads there.

Honestly, I actually expected someone to come up with a study showing that pedophiles and people with other "deviant" sexual attractions showed less restraint in acting upon their urges. Seems it was a good idea to ask.

If we are going to be entertaining hypotheticals after all - then I think I would disagree with this. I think pedophiles and other "deviants" whose desires revolve around activities that are illegal, or "taboo", or highly stigmatized etc, would be necessarily forced to exercise more restraint in acting out on them. A homo/heterosexual person with mundane interests is perfectly free to pursue them, flirt or form relationships with potential partners, and so forth; whereas someone with a fetish like "children", or even a far less stigmatized but still non-mainstream fetish like bondage, often doesn't have that freedom.

 

[jimbob]

If they have no such urges how can they admit to them? If they admit to them that is an action based on the existence of those urges.

Your confusion is based in your inability to admit to yourself that not all acts have to involve the abuse of a child.

I can't help you with that. It's your own obsession.

Now you can answer the question you've been evading. If they don't act on (including admitting) to their urges then how can you tell they are pedophiles?

And just out of curiosity, how many publicly self-admitted pedophiles who have harmed no children do you believe are out there?

It isn't exactly the sort of action society rewards. What would their motive be?

How can a paedophile satisfy their sexual urges without a victim either present, or by proxy in child pornography? There is no way that they can have a consenting partner that satisfies their sexual urges towards children.

There are other people who have sexual urges that require a victim, and they are also dangerous, but in this case we are talking about paedophiles.

Heterosexual people, and homosexual people can satisfy their urges with a consenting partner. It is the requirement for a non-consenting victim that is the problem.

I am sure that there are paedophiles who do struggle with what they know is wrong, but if they put themselves into a position of trust with children they are acting in bad faith.

 

[smartcooky]

The sheer amount sophistry and semantic babble masquerading as argument in this thread beggars belief.

People such as heterosexual men and women and homosexual men and women, whose sexual urges are to participate in legal and societally acceptable sexual activities have absolutely ZERO relevance to a discussion about paedophiles and child molesters. The "artists of sophistry" in this thread merely bring them into the discussion to confuse and obfuscate the issue. The argument that a paedophile is no greater risk of sexually offending against a child than a non-paedophile is completely spurious because there is NO LEGAL OUTLET for adults who suffer from an urge to have sex with children. None whatsoever; zip, zero, nada!!!

The real question is, is there any chance that a paedophile will give in to their urges if they are put in position where they are alone and unsupervised with the object of their desire?

Child molestation (whether you believe the perpetrators are paedophiles or not) is as often a "crime of opportunity" as it is a "premeditated offence". Putting a paedophile alone and unsupervised with children is like putting a jewel thief (or someone who has admitted to having a desire to be a jewel thief) alone in a jewellery store. You are placing temptation in their path.

However, the over-arching consideration for me is that the safety of the child is absolutely paramount. It comes first and foremost, and it is simply NOT worth taking a chance with placing them in a position where they might be at risk, and that risk IS greater than the risk from any other person who I know is NOT a paedophile. In my judgement, there is a real, and genuine risk that must be taken into account. As someone who works with young children (I am heavily involved in children's sport) it would be negligent of me to place a child at risk in such a fashion.

When it comes to child safety, the burden of proof is on the Adult to prove they are no risk to children. That is why most Western countries have CRB/DBS checks for people who will be working with children.

 

[Belz...]

People such as heterosexual men and women and homosexual men and women, whose sexual urges are to participate in legal and societally acceptable sexual activities have absolutely ZERO relevance to a discussion about paedophiles and child molesters.

Of course it does, if the question is whether the risk of one acting on their urges illegally is higher than the other's. But that's the one thing you don't want to address, because it would force you to admit that you have no clue whether pedophiles are more at risk than the general population.

Child molestation (whether you believe the perpetrators are paedophiles or not) is as often a "crime of opportunity" as it is a "premeditated offence".

And one very often perpetrated by otherwise normal people. Another uncomfortable fact.

Hey, I'm with you: pedophiles are icky, and it's rather disgusting to think they even exist. It doesn't mean we just jettison our rational thinking and just assume they're all child molesters.

When it comes to child safety, the burden of proof is on the Adult to prove they are no risk to children.

How would YOU go about meeting such a burden?

 

[deadrose]

Have you ever had a rape fantasy? Then you are as much danger to your sexual target as a non-practicing pedophile is to kids. More so, actually, because rape fantasies are a common part of our culture, and don't cause the level of shame and disgust that being sexually attracted to children causes. We even think it perfectly acceptable to force yourself on a woman and brag about it publicly.

The idea that women can defend themselves and children can't? Tell that to all the rape victims, all the women Cosby drugged, all the young women groped by Trump.

If you follow it logically, then if all pedophiles are guilty for thinking about it, then the SJW's are right and all men *are* rapists.

 

[smartcooky]

Have you ever had a rape fantasy? .

No, never. I find the idea of forcing a woman to have sex against their will to be disgusting.

Then you are as much danger to your sexual target as a non-practicing pedophile is to kids. More so, actually, because rape fantasies are a common part of our culture, and don't cause the level of shame and disgust that being sexually attracted to children causes.

Well, no.

This may be part of your culture, it is certainly not any part of mine

We even think it perfectly acceptable to force yourself on a woman and brag about it publicly.

YOU might think that. I don't find anything acceptable about that at all.

The idea that women can defend themselves and children can't? Tell that to all the rape victims, all the women Cosby drugged, all the young women groped by Trump.

Like it or not, they still had that option open to them, but were pressured into not taking it. They still understood what they were being pressured into doing. A swift kick in the gonads would have put an end to Mr Cosby's antics (and Mr Trump's). Barring that, they could have spoken up about straight it afterwards instead of waiting 30-40 years

A two year old child would not even understand what is happening to them, let alone be able to do anything about it.

If you follow it logically, then if all paedophiles are guilty for thinking about it, then the SJW's are right and all men *are* rapists.

Even if I accept that your argument about rape fantasy is true (which I do not) the problem with paedophile is that is the only type of sexuality they think about. I doubt if your average male has rape fantasies every day

 

[cullennz]

Have you ever had a rape fantasy? Then you are as much danger to your sexual target as a non-practicing pedophile is to kids. More so, actually, because rape fantasies are a common part of our culture, and don't cause the level of shame and disgust that being sexually attracted to children causes. We even think it perfectly acceptable to force yourself on a woman and brag about it publicly.
The idea that women can defend themselves and children can't? Tell that to all the rape victims, all the women Cosby drugged, all the young women groped by Trump.

If you follow it logically, then if all pedophiles are guilty for thinking about it, then the SJW's are right and all men *are* rapists.

Who is we?

Trump?

 

[Belz...]

No, never.

The idea of forcing a woman to have sex against their will is disgusting.

And yet many women fantasize about being raped. That's the difference between crime and thought, and why you can't police the latter.

I really think you ought to open yourself for the possibility that the human universe isn't limited to your experiences, and that what's different isn't necessarily bad.

 

[smartcooky]

And yet many women fantasize about being raped. That's the difference between crime and thought, and why you can't police the latter.

They would be in a tiny, tiny minority, but I guess there is no accounting for how depraved and abhorrent people can be?

I really think you ought to open yourself for the possibility that the human universe isn't limited to your experiences, and that what's different isn't necessarily bad.

What do you find good about paedophilia?

 

[Minoosh]

Arguing over what these disgusting individuals should be called is rather like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I don't much care whether you want to call them pedophiles or child molesters, its all the same to me. They are vile, depraved perverts who ought to have their genitalia removed with a rusty carving knife.

I slightly knew a man who actually did try to castrate himself to rid himself of attraction to children. Testicles, not the penis. He botched it but AFAIK did have the surgery he required.

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this is all repetition. People who have been sexually abused sometimes go on to become abusers. It's not acceptable, of course, but the association of sex and shame may permanently warp the attractions felt as an adult. That said I think excising the sex drive via castration is a perfectly legitimate strategy to combat chronic pedophilia, should the data indicate effectiveness.

Quite a few states allow for child molesters to be locked up indefinitely, long past their prison term, under civil commitment laws. If a simple surgical procedure can eliminate recidivism I'd say that's preferable to the civil commitment laws in my state.

 

[theprestige]

So

1. If Fred is a paedophile, but has never behaved in an inappropriate sexual manner towards a child and/or has never admitted to his condition, then I don't know he is a paedophile, so whether or not I would trust him to mind a child unsupervised is moot.

2. If Fred is a paedophile, but has never behaved in an inappropriate sexual manner towards a child, but, he HAS admitted to his condition, then I am not letting him anywhere near a child unsupervised.

Do you think that would be a fair reaction?

The reaction I'm objecting to is that of using the language of hate, unapologetically to refer Fred 1 and Fred 2, as if they were the same as Fred 3 the known child molester.

Do you agree that Fred 1 and 2 are not child molesters, and should not be demonized as if they were?

 

[Checkmite]

And one very often perpetrated by otherwise normal people. Another uncomfortable fact.

Yes; aside from having a sexual interest in children, they are otherwise normal. But this is a specious point.

 

[cullennz]

I slightly knew a man who actually did try to castrate himself to rid himself of attraction to children. Testicles, not the penis. He botched it but AFAIK did have the surgery he required.

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this is all repetition. People who have been sexually abused sometimes go on to become abusers. It's not acceptable, of course, but the association of sex and shame may permanently warp the attractions felt as an adult. That said I think excising the sex drive via castration is a perfectly legitimate strategy to combat chronic pedophilia, should the data indicate effectiveness.

Quite a few states allow for child molesters to be locked up indefinitely, long past their prison term, under civil commitment laws. If a simple surgical procedure can eliminate recidivism I'd say that's preferable to the civil commitment laws in my state.

Geez I wish I'd read this "after" dinner

 

[Venom]

the problem is the usage of "kid". I'm sure most people are reasonable enough to recognize a prepubescent child when they see one, the victim of molestation and child abuse. But the other glaring connotation it can take on involves underage sex between say, a middle teen and adult. That is a significant difference.

I'm not saying anybody in particular in this thread is conflating the two situations, but it's worth noting in this discussion. When emotions run high like in page one of this thread, the view of the general public is to treat everyone who is underage in one law or another the same.

 

[cullennz]

the problem is the usage of "kid". I'm sure most people are reasonable enough to recognize a prepubescent child when they see one, the victim of molestation and child abuse. But the other glaring connotation it can take on involves underage sex between say, a middle teen and adult. That is a significant difference.

I'm not saying anybody in particular in this thread is conflating the two situations, but it's worth noting in this discussion. When emotions run high like in page one of this thread, the view of the general public is to treat everyone who is underage in one law or another the same.

Fair point.

Shall we use 2 years old as a number?

 

[cullennz]

Actually pre school.

4 years old

 

[quadraginta]

Well, y'all are admittedly kind of losing me with the "would you trust your kid around" argument. I do not have children and don't ever plan on it, but if I did, I'd have a hell of a time trusting him/her with ANYBODY I didn't know really well.
<snip>

And herein lies a problem, since by an overwhelming majority it is people that the parents know who are the ones guilty of abusing their kids.

Except when it is the parents themselves, of course.

From a statistical viewpoint your children would be far safer with total strangers than with family or people you know.

 

[cullennz]

And herein lies a problem, since by an overwhelming majority it is people that the parents know who are the ones guilty of abusing their kids.

Except when it is the parents themselves, of course.

From a statistical viewpoint your children would be far safer with total strangers than with family or people you know.

Unless they are a known pedo

 

[Venom]

Fair point.

Shall we use 2 years old as a number?

I think prepubescent children are rather easy to identify most of the time for the majority of functioning people. Our thinking caps are pretty effective as they are. People just get caught up in obsessing over the fine line, or rather, gray area that treads the early teen years.

True pedophiles are distinguished from 'men just being men' by hanging around in the lower end of that area.

 

[cullennz]

I think prepubescent children are rather easy to identify most of the time for the majority of functioning people. Our thinking caps are pretty effective as they are. People just get caught up in obsessing over the fine line, or rather, gray area that treads the early teen years.

True pedophiles are distinguished from 'men just being men' by hanging around in the lower end of that area.

No offence but

I think you are trying to murky the waters

I think you will find the majority of pedos go for younger