Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Malice » Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:53 am UTC

psyck0 wrote:The DSM criteria for a mental disorder, along with the reason pedophilia qualifies as one, are in my post about 3 above this, for all those people who are still asking about it after my post.

Pedophilia IS a legitimate mental disorder, just as homosexuality WAS a legitimate mental disorder back in the day. The term "mental disorder" does NOT HAVE ANY FUCKING NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS. There is absolutely NOTHING inherently wrong with having a mental disorder, and saying homosexuality was a mental disorder just means that it caused the people concerned a hell of a lot of trauma, NOT THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY.

I absolutely despise the amount of stigma there is around mental illness. People automatically assume that if it's a mental illness, it's "bad" or "unnatural" or one of 50 other negative associations. EDUCATE YOUR-FUCKING-SELVES.


My problem with this is that people do, in fact, treat a mental illness differently. In fact, I'm talking about this sort of thing...

jestingrabbit wrote:Someone who isn't in the process of grooming a particular victim, and has never done so, shouldn't be forced into treatment imo. But someone who is undertaking this process should be stopped. As they haven't committed a crime, they can't be stopped by the police. Given that they are a risk to someone else, though, they can be detained due to their mental illness, and I think it is the right thing to do.


The laws on the books say:

1) If you are a danger to yourself or to others, we can't do a damn thing to you. (I cannot legally throw you in jail for contemplating suicide, drawing pictures of murder, etc.)
2) If a mental illness causes you to be a danger to yourself or others, we can lock you up in a psychiatric facility.

But going by that DSM criteria, the reason pedophilia falls into the category of mental illness is, society doesn't like pedophiles and that makes the pedophiles very unhappy.
But that's not the reason people advocate locking them up. They advocate treating pedophiles for their underlying desires--which are NOT the result of mental illness.

I don't know who came up with the idea that anything society deems unpopular or vilifies is automatically a mental illness, signified by the name of the vilified attribute; under those terms, for the past few hundred years being black has technically been a mental illness. I would rather the medical establishment come up with a name for the results--something like "societal persecution disorder", an illness characterized by low self-esteem and depression caused by internalization of hatred, etc., instead of calling the desires themselves a disorder.

The result of this is that a pedophile may have a mental illness (depression brought on by the fact that their desires are not socially acceptable), but that is not what people are advocating treating them for; people take the term "mental illness" and assume you can lock up a person for something unrelated.

Wanting to do something does not constitute a mental illness; or else you'd have to lock up everybody with sex drives. Being forced to act on those urges is a mental illness, but I'm not sure any normal pedophile falls under that definition, even the ones which act. The fact remains that you cannot treat somebody for innate, natural desires--you certainly can't force treatment on them if they've never acted. You can only treat them for the mental results of societal persecution, and having society mandate that seems rather, well, fucked-up.

In summary, calling pedophilia a mental illness, without making clear the distinction that we're talking about the results and not the desires, is irresponsible at best, and can lead less informed people down some very scary roads.
Image

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Princess Marzipan » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:11 am UTC

Here is my biggest problem with forced treatment.

If someone doesn't want treatment, all they have to do is just not come out and admit to being a pedophile. They can keep it a secret and try to deal with it on their own. For some, this works. For most, I would doubt it. I for one am very vocal with my friends about emotional issues - if I didn't want 'treatment' and I had to keep such a secret from my friends and people I otherwise trust, I wouldn't do well at all.

Whereas if you don't have forced treatment, and instead foster an open and caring society that does not demonize the desire, only the act - everyone comes out ahead. You no longer have a situation where you face likely exile from society because you admit to this attraction you have. That is so much healthier than any forced treatment could ever be.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:20 am UTC

Intercept wrote:
Belial wrote:
Meaux_Pas wrote:Sometimes I really just want to kill a lot of people. Will everyone insisting that this person can't possibly exercise self control for the duration of his life say the same for me?


If your drive to kill a lot of people is similar in duration and intensity as your desire to have sex, and you found it equally easy to rationalize, I'd suggest psychological treatment ASAP, yes.

But I imagine it's just short term, intermittent, and not as strong.

Likewise, it would be a lot harder to engage in some rationalization to make it okay in your head when you started murdering folk.

So you're probably okay.

Of course, it's always possible that, despite all that, this dude is a pillar of willpower and he'll be fine forever. But I prefer to assume most people are of average willpower, and that therefore this guy will slip up.


As many people who have contemplated/committed murder or genocide will tell you, it's not that hard to rationalize.


I can attest to this, having contemplated some criminal acts in the past (though not murder or genocide... more along the lines of shoplifting or punching someone). The urges can get pretty strong, but I highly doubt that a person of "average willpower" as Belial said would not be able to overcome them. What average willpower is is highly debatable anyways, and I don't think we want to have that debate. Also, having no hard evidence as to the willpower required to not give in, we are relying on assumptions.

Belial wrote:Treatment is not punishment. Treatment is treatment. If you get typhoid or get run over by a car, you're not being *punished* when we take you to the hospital and hold you there until you're better, all the while using medicine and medical procedures on you to facilitate the process. You're being treated.


The semantics and uses of a statement like this scare the shit out of me. You're saying that taking away a person who is in a medical condition that likely makes them unconscious or near death is being taken prisoner when they're being treated to have their lives saved. You're then saying that preemptively locking someone up, which, by the way, is what you're doing, for some illegal desire or thing they have contemplated is equivalent. Forced treatment and prison aren't all that different. The worst part about prison? Losing your own freedom. I believe forced treatment also has that problem.


Agreed. Treatment that is not voluntary is the same as imprisonment. Perhaps it would help if the people who want him to have treatment would say if they want it forced on him or as a voluntary choice; I'm not sure but a lot of the arguments seemed to be in favor of optional treatment, not mandatory.

Belial wrote:
VirtualAardvark wrote:It is unfair to assume anyone with an attraction is liable to act on it. I have a close friend who has frequently fantasized about raping women. I know I fit into the type of chick he's attracted to. I also know that I could in no way resist him if it ever came down to that. This in no way prevents me from being comfortable around him.


I hope that works out for you. If I were a woman, knowing that 1 in 3 women are raped or sexually assaulted, most of them by someone they know, I wouldn't hang out alone with the big guy with the rape fantasies and the unrequited attraction to me. But that's your risk to take. You're deciding to take it, knowing the odds.*


The statistic you are using here has no bearing on the matter at hand; using it is affirming the consequent. Sure, one in three women get raped. This is a horrible fact. But that doesn't give any meaningful information about how many men rape women, or how strong the desires are to do so, and especially not the chances of a specific man raping someone. If you have statistics on this, that would be helpful, but if not, don't misuse existing statistics.

Belial wrote:Unfortunately, all a repressed pedophile has to do is go to a further-away playground to find some kids who don't know the odds or the factors, and put them at risk without that decision. By deciding we're okay with that, we're kindof making that choice for everyone.


Kids should be being supervised, no matter how far away the playground is from the nearest pedophile. That aside, you assume here that the person who we are speaking of is going to sexually assault children. Either that or you are unsure, but you think it is better to lock him up anyways. In that case, I refer you to the statement of judicial principle that it is better to let 10 guilty men walk free than to put one innocent man in prison.

Belial wrote:
Intercept wrote:As many people who have contemplated/committed murder or genocide will tell you, it's not that hard to rationalize.


Harder than pedophilia. As evidenced by the fact that 10% of our population hasn't been murdered in cold blood. And I'll wager that quite a few more people have considered killing people than have considered fucking 10 year olds.


I don't know if you'd win that bet, but it's really unimportant. how easy something is to rationalize isn't cause to effectively imprison anyone who thinks thoughts that way, especially if they're predisposed to it. I agree that he should probably seek help, but forcing it denies a person of basic human rights without any foreseeable gain *in the individual case*.

Belial wrote:
You're then saying that preemptively locking someone up, which, by the way, is what you're doing, for some illegal desire or thing they have contemplated is equivalent. Forced treatment and prison aren't all that different. The worst part about prison? Losing your own freedom. I believe forced treatment also has that problem.


Not really. Did you read the link JestingRabbit posted vis-a-vis treatment regimens for pedophilia? Most of it is outpatient. But the point is that someone is keeping an eye on this person, monitoring their condition, and working them toward either replacing or nullifying those urges.

*Which is not to say in any sense that it will be your fault if you get raped. That will rest squarely on him. I am merely contrasting with the lack of choice offered to unsuspecting children in a similar scenario.


So if it's an outpatient kind of treatment, then possibly it would be more accurate to classify it as house-arrest or parole or something along those lines. Which is still wrong.

If Chickens Were Purple... wrote:I think if I were attracted to children, I'd be less likely to act on it without medical/psychiatric intervention. Obviously I don't know that. But I'm guessing, if I kept it to myself I'd have the whole 'society has deemed this the most shameful thing you can ever possibly do' thing to keep me in check, whereas if some doctor was telling me "you're sick! I sure hope we can treat you sucessfully, you poor thing", I'd be more likely to accept raping children as a part of who I am, and I'd be able to justify it by thinking in terms of the treatment failing.


Confucius would agree with you-law is by far inferior to ritual and societal conformity in achieving stability.

Mane wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:Yeah...it really doesn't matter at all whether it's a disorder or orientation; it's just semantics at best.

You may be trying to make it 'just semantics', but it's really not, and you're showing just how deep your misunderstanding of what a paraphilia or other sexual disorder is in relation to a sexual orientation really is.

Homosexuality may have been classified as a mental disorder, but it was never classified as a paraphilia (as far as I know). There is a great deal of difference between 'orientation' and a mental disorder.


Great job. You have said they are different. But you haven't specified how. I'm so impressed I think I'll not believe you. Perhaps if you went more in depth than "homosexuality was never a paraphilia" then I *might* consider what you have to say.

qinwamascot wrote:and in the worst case scenario that one of them gets abused, I would know about it.

Child sex abuse is a very tramatic event in a child's life it's not merely 'oh well I'll know about it, it's okay' that's sort of like saying 'oh it's okay to have a serial killer over for babysitting, cause if he beheads one of my kids I'll know.'


You have missed the entire point. It is a worst-case scenario. In alternative worst-case scenarios, like someone who is secretly a pedophile and who I am not prepared for or observing, I would not know. Surely, you'd agree that knowing is better than not knowing. Either way, the fact that the child is abused is unavoidable in either your case or mine, so mine is superior because I know what happened.

Your analogy here is ridiculous, as anyone can see. I'm not even going to bother attacking it.

Belial wrote:
think we can do without the paranoia mongering. Hey, your average male high school teacher is going to find some of his female students attractive, yet he manages not to sleep with them, often times even when they're consenting and willing to keep it secret. I guess he's just not tempted?


Or he's capable of having sex with someone with similar attributes without it being a massive ethics violation.

Assuming we're talking about a full-on, not-interested-in-adults pedophile, we're basically asking someone to shut down or suppress their entire sex drive indefinitely, and just assuming that they can do that with no help. That's not quite the same as refraining from punching someone at work, or refraining from having sex *right now* with *that specific person*. Kindof like a giant squid is not quite a cuttlefish.

I'm not quite sure how many more ways I can say that, so I'm going to stop, and just assume that anyone who ignores it and makes a "I really want to eat 500 twinkies should they put me in the hospital against my will" argument rather than addressing it is impenetrable.


You are assuming how strong his willpower and sex drive are. Perhaps he has a very low sex drive? Or perhaps he has decent willpower. Either way, I don't see it as being impossible, or even extremely difficult, to not make a mistake. Temptations tend to get *easier* to resist over time due to the building of habits. It's a known and well-documented psychological phenomenon, and why when people try to quit smoking, 50% of those who make it past 3 days succeed. The desire never totally goes away, but it gets weaker over time.

btw I ate 500 twinkies over a 2 month period one time. Not. Fun. But that's another story for a more relevant time.

TheStranger wrote:
Kachi wrote:I think we can do without the paranoia mongering. Hey, your average male high school teacher is going to find some of his female students attractive, yet he manages not to sleep with them, often times even when they're consenting and willing to keep it secret. I guess he's just not tempted? Pfft. And I'm hard pressed to believe there's any difference between those teachers and the elementary school teacher who may have similar issues. (Note that in most high schools, it's grounds for termination to even plan to have a relationship with a student after their graduation.)


But a teacher is not, by definition, attracted to their students... and has other outlets for their desires (they are only restricted from relationships with their students, not others of legal age). A paedophile, by definition, has no such outlets.

Imprisonment, for someone who has not actually committed a crime is obviously incorrect... but I don't see why this guy shouldn't seek professional help to deal with 'this'.


A lot of male teachers are attracted to female students though. Sure, many aren't, but quite a few are, yet they manage to overcome it. However I agree with you that he should seek professional help. The problem most people here have is if he is forced to get professional help.

Nougatrocity wrote:I'll say this again: before society says "this is something you need to be treated for," it also needs to stop saying "this makes you a disgusting and terrible person and we need to fix fix fix it!"

I know that that's not what you're saying, Belial, but our society is full of people that are judgmental assholes about these sorts of things. I honestly think if we got to the point where society could be justified in demanding treatment, that society wouldn't have to demand it - there would be no negatives in seeking it.


Another very Confucian argument (in case you're wondering, I mean that as a compliment). I think *almost* everyone would agree that a situation where he can come forward himself and seek treatment without being shunned by society is the best case scenario. Unfortunately, we aren't there. Not even close. I think it's partly because everyone wants to force treatment on them that they will never come forward. And, of course, partly because of a society that shuns people who have done nothing wrong.
jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:If its a tiny risk why is it that

here wrote:Conservative estimates indicate that 20% of all females and 10% of all males have been molested prior to age 18 years.


That's a pretty significant portion of the populus. Moreover, its a very negative thing for a child to be sexually abused. It can lead to serious problems throughout the rest of the child's life. Finally, its not a risk that you are taking upon yourself, it is a risk that you are forcing upon your children. Its a pretty significant social rule that parents should protect their children, and to walk away from that, to see something which can be severly debilitating, that occurs to something like 15% of children, as a small risk is incredibly stupid.


The reason I think it is a relatively small risk is this: the person is openly a pedophile.

Allow me to explain. I'm assuming that the person knows that I know that they are a pedophile. Thus, I'd likely set up security systems (i.e. cameras, telling my kids about sexual abuse, etc) and have ways to check. Personally, I have security cameras set up in my dorm room 24/7 in case some one steals something. I'd likely do the same for my house. Also, my kids will be adequately prepared, and in the worst case scenario that one of them gets abused, I would know about it. The person who would knowingly accept these restrictions and be willing to babysit anyways would be constantly aware of the consequences and that I am adequately prepared.

On the other hand, an ordinary pedophile will think they can get away with something. It's not hard to get away with if the person isn't prepared. It's much harder if the person is. Perhaps I should qualify here that I was talking about children who are at least 10-11 years old and know about sex and abuse. I wouldn't particularly trust anyone outside my immediate family with children younger than that.


So its not simply because of the openness of the pedophile, its the fact that you would have that person under surveillance, prepare your children, and only subject children who are older than 10 to this risk.

To put it another way: you don't trust that a pedophile who is open about it wont offend, you trust that there are steps that you can take to minimise a risk that your hypothetical actions demonstrate you are well aware of.


I don't trust anyone to not offend, so I'd take the same steps to avoid it regardless. Perhaps I'm a control-freak, but for me the limitations above would be the standards for anyone watching my children, not just a known pedophile. Under these assumptions, having a known pedophile is not a significant risk. Perhaps others aren't as paranoid of people in general as me, but since I am already as paranoid as I am, I see no reason to be more paranoid because someone has admitted that they are attracted to children.

But even this position is incredibly stupid. A lot of the work that pedophiles undertake on the way to actually abusing a child is called grooming, a process which is all about creating a relationship of trust between the pedophile and a prospective victim. You're basically putting someone in a position where the job that they're doing requires that they undertake actions that bring them closer to hurting people. The sort of treatment that's out there is all about stopping this sort of thing from happening, but you'd be fine with it. That's stupid.


I'd respectfully disagree. Perhaps if the person was actively trying to rape someone, this would be the case. But he isn't. And from what I can tell, the "treatments" that are out there really don't have any great impact anyways, especially after we factor in the placebo effect. If such a person, who is actively trying to avoid abusing children, would be unwilling to do it, as they might be, that'd be understandable, but if they have enough willpower to avoid doing anything, which I personally don't think is very much, there is no problem.

btw, there is nothing to suggest that the dA poster is open about their pedophilia in their day to day life. They are at pains to not pay for things using their own accounts for instance. They felt that they were free to talk about it because they could not be identified via their account.


Yes, but the reason for this is because he doesn't want to face the condemn and criticism of the public, many of whom attack his very existence. Judging by just the posts here and there, both somewhat liberal online communities, that is highly understandable. I don't think that 'coming out' on an internet community or real life signifies a different desire to not rape children; just that he doesn't want to be attacked himself in real life. I'm sure there are a lot of lunatics who would do things like set fire to his house just because of something he has no control over. But it doesn't change any of my argument before.

jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:As for what this individual should do, I think they should seek professional help. Every pedophile who acts on their urges was at one time a pedophile who did not act on their urges and you have acted too late if you wait for harmful behaviours to develop before getting help.

As for the idea that there is no treatment available: that's nonsense. Read this.


I agree that if he has urges that are uncontrollable, he should seek treatment. However, forcing it on him is absolutely wrong.


If someone is suicidal, the state doesn't wait until those thoughts are uncontrollable. It intervenes before then if possible, and I think the state should do the same in this case. The usual requirement (we are all probably coming from different jurisdictions, so this will vary) for detaining someone against their will for psychiatric treatment is that they are a danger to themselves or others. Why should that standard be varied in the case of pedophilia?


I don't want to get into a suicide debate here, I have another topic for that. Suffice it to say I'm not in favor of the current restrictions. I think a better restriction is immediate danger to others.


Fine, lets not discuss suicide.

Under the rule that you suggest, if a pedophile were to report that they were befriending a child and had had sexual fantasies regarding that child and was contemplating abusing that child, it seems like the right thing to do, on the basis of your rule, would be to restrict that person's freedom, yes? So there are cases where you can acknowledge that a pedophile should have their freedoms restricted for the safety of others and so that they can get psychiatric help, before they have offended, yes?

I realise that this is not the case for the specific individual being discussed here, but your discussion of babysitting was equally not about this individual.


Sexual fantasies do not constitute an immediate danger in my opinion. As for the contemplating abusing the child portion, this would depend on the nature of the contemplation. *as a (relevant) example* I have contemplated punching people in the face, but that doesn't make me an immediate danger to them. If I get to the point where I am resolved to do so, then I would be an immediate danger. And yes, at that point, I think we should treat them. Notably, this line is also when it becomes a crime i.e. attempted molestation. So until they have committed *a* crime, we shouldn't treat them. Once they have, even if it is only a crime of attempt, then it is perfectly fine.

I guess we've kind of shifted into a discussion of pedophilia in general now anyway, so it's probably alright. So long as we recognize the difference in the two cases.

jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:Your argument here that every pedophile who acts on their urges at one point wasn't is true. But it doesn't contribute anything at all to the debate. From this we can not make any conclusions about how likely it is that he will at some point give in. To do so would be affirming the consequent.


You're correct that we can't make a statistical judgement of how dangerous any given individual non-offending pedophile is, though you seem quite comfortable claiming that they present a tiny risk, despite the fact that child sexual abuse is widely recognised as being highly detrimental, and without any supporting data, supporting you claims with repeated appeals to willpower.

But regardless of what the actual probability is, considering the possible harm that could be done, that individual has a moral duty to persue actions that minimise that probability. They should get psychiatric or psychological help.


But you're forgetting the other side of the equation. Putting non-offending pedophiles who will never offend into prison/treatment against their own will is also a negative. You have to balance this with the negative of harm to children. I agree that they should get help, but not that we should force them to.


Someone who isn't in the process of grooming a particular victim, and has never done so, shouldn't be forced into treatment imo. But someone who is undertaking this process should be stopped. As they haven't committed a crime, they can't be stopped by the police. Given that they are a risk to someone else, though, they can be detained due to their mental illness, and I think it is the right thing to do.


I believe this would qualify as attempted molestation legally. It'd be hard to decide, but a jury can convict if they find that he was acting based on a plan to do so. After that point, they should absolutely be detained. But not before.

...wow, I'm agreeing with you now. Either one of us changed positions or I didn't understand your position before.

jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:To show how this logic fails, I'll take another example. Everyone who is a murderer at one point was born. Thus, to reduce the number of murders, we should kill all the newborn babies. This will accomplish said goal, but it assumes that the converse of the statement is true. In reality, we have no way of telling the small percentage of people who will become murderers from the much larger set of people who are born. Just like we have no way of telling the small number of people who will rape children relative to the larger number who have urges to do so.


If someone was regularly fantasizing about killing people, I would think that person needed help too. Beyond that, your analogy is completely specious.


Such a person should seek help, but the difference is whether or not the government should force them to get it. I don't think so, but it ultimately isn't very relevant to this topic. I don't see the problem with the analogy. Unless you're using the older, obsolete meaning of specious (showy), in which case admittedly it is.
jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:So in short, this argument absolutely fails in formal logic. The premise is true, but the steps to get to the conclusion are invalid, so the conclusion is not valid.


Given that I wasn't trying to formally prove anything, I am comfortable with this. But you should realise that formal logic has its limits, and that your own argument is riddled with assumptions that seem to have no basis in fact.


The point is that if an argument fails in formal logic, it doesn't make sense. My argument may be based on faulty premisses, but it is logically consistent within these premisses. So in short, neither argument is necessarily correct. However, if my (admittedly unresearched) premisses are correct, then the conclusion follows. For yours, the premisses don't imply the conclusion as written.


Here's my argument presented in a formal Bayesian framework with some standard syllogisms

X="Some individual adult"
D="X is a pedophile"
M="X is a child molester"
T="X is undergoing psychiatric or psychological treatment for pedophilia"

P(M | X and (not D)) = P(M | X and (not D) and T) = P(M | X and (not D) and (not T)) < P(M | X and D and T) < P(M | X and D and (not T))

This, coupled with the assumptions that "Someone who can reduce the chance that they will molest children without gross imposition should do so" and "Psychiatric treatment is not a gross imposition" leads to the conclusion that "Pedophiles should undergo psychiatric or psychological treatment for pedophilia".


...I really meant that your logic assumed that the converse of a true statement is also true, which is a formal logical fallacy. Not that you have to use logical framework, but that you have to recognize the fallacies in standard english. Certainly the above is unnecessary for a forum-style debate (I don't think I even use that in structured debates very much tbh)

That being said, I agree with this. Pedophiles should undergo treatment. But it shouldn't be forced.

btw I corrected your spelling mistake when you wrote Bayesian

jestingrabbit wrote:But hey, why don't we stick to english. You claim that an analogy that has death being substituted for psychiatric treatment is a reasonable analogy. I claim that its specious bullshit, in the sense of specious where I mean that you are pulling stuff from your arse and claiming that it is the crown jewels of the king of rationality.

I mean, you have an analogy where you've got (child abuse, pedophile, treatment)~(murder, human, death). That's a really bad analogy.


Perhaps. That analogy really was only somewhat important to my argument though.

jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:I don't agree with Oklahoma state policy on a lot of things, but there isn't a lot I can do about it since I vote in New Jersey. But the policy you mentioned dealt with people with mental illnesses which obstructed decision-making ability. I'd argue that this doesn't fall into such a category since the person in question knows what the right decision is.


Fine. New Jersey it is.

New Jersey Mental Health Law wrote:m. "In need of involuntary commitment" means that an adult who is mentally ill, whose mental illness causes the person to be dangerous to self or dangerous to others or property and who is unwilling to be admitted to a facility voluntarily for care, and who needs care at a short-term care, psychiatric facility or special psychiatric hospital because other services are not appropriate or available to meet the person's mental health care needs.


Ok, so people can be admitted against their will if they pose a serious danger to themselves or others. So like actually planning and/or attempting to molest someone. Just being a pedophile doesn't qualify here if I understand correctly. Not that pedophiles shouldn't seek treatment, but just as much, it shouldn't be forced on them.

jestingrabbit wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:
Nougatrocity wrote:Does that 20% of women/10% of men statistic mean ACTUAL abuse, or does it include instances where it's only a crime because the law dictates it? (For example, if a 17 year old has consensual sex with an 18 year old in state where 18 is the age of consent, does that technically illegal act constitute sexual abuse?)


The source that is being cited reads as follows:

Pedophilia is the most common paraphiliac act involving the touching of a victim against his or her will or who is unable to give consent. Conservative estimates indicate that 20% of all females and 10% of all males have been molested prior to age 18 years (Finkelhor et al. 1986).


This seems a bit hard to interpret. All that is required are 1) touching the victim and 2) victim unable to give consent. So my parents, who touched me when I was a baby, are pedophiles by this wording. I don't know how to fix it. If I find a copy of that study I will try to locate the exact definition used because this is a poor definition overall.

There is another way to read it, that "involving" is operative and not qualifying, meaning this isn't even a definition at all. In that case they haven't offered a better one.

I think this probably answers your question though, even if it is poorly worded. So yes, it would, assuming it was reported.


Why don't you, instead of trying to read the tealeaves of a pair of sentences, read the excerpt from the book that amazon provides?

If you'd done that, you'd realise that that figure is the distilled wisdom of the entire first chapter of "A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse". A range of studies are cited, with figures as low as 6% and 3% and as high as 62% and 31% for females and males respectively. The 20%/10% figures are a best, low ball, guess taking into account all the data.


Thank you. I didn't find it on a quick search, and was pressed for time. Reading that has expanded my knowledge of the subject. My opinion doesn't really change though. Unfortunately they didn't provide a single definition for child molestation, but rather conglomerated statistics, so the definition is ambiguous. Ultimately how we define sexual abuse is a relatively minor problem though.

Later work by Finkelhor is summarised in an abstract for a paper.

Finkelhor, D. (1994). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 409-417. wrote:Abstract: "Surveys of child sexual abuse in large nonclinical populations of adults have been conducted in at least 19 countries in addition to the United States and Canada, including 10 national probability samples. All studies have found rates in line with comparable North American research, ranging from 7% to 36% for women and 3% to 29% for men. Most studies found females to be abused at 1.5 to 3 times the rate for males. Few comparisons among countries are possible because of methodological and definitional differences. However, they clearly confirm sexual abuse to be an international problem."


Even if we take the low numbers here, they are pretty big numbers. They're considerably larger than 1 in 100, more like 1 in 20. That's a pretty significant part of the population.


True. It's a tragedy the amount abuse goes on, but I'd guess (and this is purely a guess with no evidence supporting it) that a large number of these cases were committed by a relatively small group of people, even compared to the total pedophile community.

Gelsamel wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:In general I like short, thin, cute and small breasted or flat-chested girls.


Maybe I should elaborate.

Those traits that I like are usually associated with children or prepubescence. Under the definition of paedophilia you're using, would I be a paedophile?

I don't think we can discuss this until we agree on a definition to use for the discussion.


I doubt anyone will object regardless of what definition you pick. If you want to argue that you are a pedophile, choose a definition that frames it in that context. From what I've read about the dA person, I can't really gather much about him. although he does call his interests "lolicon" at one point.

edit: I finished typing this up and there are like 4 new posts. I'm not going to respond to these right now as I have to do some homework.

edit: redid some formatting so that people won't complain.
Last edited by qinwamascot on Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:13 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Quiznos>Subway

Mane
21th Century African?
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:56 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Mane » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:32 am UTC

qinwamascot wrote:The above post

Dude, for christ sake, format your quotes properly and don't cut the stuff you're not replying to (ie if person A quotes person B, you shouldn't include person B's quote in your reply to Person A).

User avatar
Cryopyre
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:00 am UTC
Location: A desert

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Cryopyre » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:35 am UTC

I think that the true problem here is a pedophile who has the same impulses as a rapist. Is it fair to say a rapist and a non-rapist are separated by strong impulses to act on selfish desires? Then similarly one could say that the difference between this man and a non-active pedophile is a similar uncontrollable impulse.

So it may not so much be a ticking time bomb as, more accurately described, an unfortunate desire that one could never morally fulfill.

I, like most others, believe that the man could use therapy, but I think the true question is "Can we have a society that would safely allow such people to turn themselves over to such clinics without fear of themselves permanently stamped 'sexual offender?'" Because I have a feeling that a man like this could be turned, for the most part, into a healthy, or at least 'more at peace' adult.

But that may be positive thinking.

EDIT: Ahhh crap, I thought there was only one page here for some reason, so this post may be obsolete.
Felstaff wrote:I actually see what religion is to social, economical and perhaps political progress in a similar way to what war is to technological progress.

Gunfingers wrote:Voting is the power to speak your mind. You, apparently, had nothing to say.

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:48 am UTC

Mane wrote:Dude, for christ sake, format your quotes properly and don't cut the stuff you're not replying to (ie if person A quotes person B, you shouldn't include person B's quote in your reply to Person A).


This isn't standard convention. I do it some times, but other times it is helpful to have the context immediately accessible. If you don't like how I format my posts, you don't need to read them. Plus it seems your post really doesn't have any meaning to it besides attacking my formatting, which is not productive for debate, and you're forcing me to make this post prematurely, which slows the flow of the debate.

Cryopyre wrote:So it may not so much be a ticking time bomb as, more accurately described, an unfortunate desire that one could never morally fulfill.

I, like most others, believe that the man could use therapy, but I think the true question is "Can we have a society that would safely allow such people to turn themselves over to such clinics without fear of themselves permanently stamped 'sexual offender?'" Because I have a feeling that a man like this could be turned, for the most part, into a healthy, or at least 'more at peace' adult.


Yes, this is not a new point, but you do bring up new nuances and analogies which are interesting. In general, I agree with what you are saying--he should seek treatment on his own, but it isn't impossible for him to become a good member of society without it.
Quiznos>Subway

Mane
21th Century African?
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:56 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Mane » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:53 am UTC

qinwamascot wrote:
Great job. You have said they are different. But you haven't specified how. I'm so impressed I think I'll not believe you. Perhaps if you went more in depth than "homosexuality was never a paraphilia" then I *might* consider what you have to say.


Wow, really. You can't figure it? I really don't *care* whether or not you consider what I have to say, because I know I'm right, I know Pedophilia is not the same thing as a sexual orientation, if you knew anything about what a Paraphilia was, you'd understand why there is a difference. Further more, if you understood what Paraphilia is classified as, such as strong urges to have sex with children, you'd realize that 'having strong urges to have sex with children' is not the same as a sexual orientation.


qinwamascot wrote:You have missed the entire point. It is a worst-case scenario. In alternative worst-case scenarios, like someone who is secretly a pedophile and who I am not prepared for or observing, I would not know. Surely, you'd agree that knowing is better than not knowing. Either way, the fact that the child is abused is unavoidable in either your case or mine, so mine is superior because I know what happened.

Uh no, in my case I would have never have let a known pedophile babysit my goddamn kids to begin with, you know, because I'd be a responsible parent.

Your analogy here is ridiculous, as anyone can see. I'm not even going to bother attacking it.
The off-handed way you deal with the possibility that your kids could be mentally scarred, FOR LIFE, is rather ridiculous in and of itself. My analogy is only ridiculous because your example was just as ridiculous, if not more so, because at least if a serial killer kills you, you're dead, you're not going to have to deal with the mental scarring for the next 70 or so years.

This isn't standard convention. I do it some times, but other times it is helpful to have the context immediately accessible. If you don't like how I format my posts, you don't need to read them. Plus it seems your post really doesn't have any meaning to it besides attacking my formatting, which is not productive for debate, and you're forcing me to make this post prematurely, which slows the flow of the debate.

No one wants to read a 'wall of quote' and if you insert your comments into the quote and I don't know that's not what the original quote looks like, it's going to slow the debate down a whole lot more then if you just format your posts correctly.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Princess Marzipan » Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:12 am UTC

Mane, you're being an asshole. That's far more detrimental to conversation than misformated quotes.

Mane wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:Great job. You have said they are different. But you haven't specified how. I'm so impressed I think I'll not believe you. Perhaps if you went more in depth than "homosexuality was never a paraphilia" then I *might* consider what you have to say.


Wow, really. You can't figure it? I really don't *care* whether or not you consider what I have to say, because I know I'm right, I know Pedophilia is not the same thing as a sexual orientation, if you knew anything about what a Paraphilia was, you'd understand why there is a difference. Further more, if you understood what Paraphilia is classified as, such as strong urges to have sex with children, you'd realize that 'having strong urges to have sex with children' is not the same as a sexual orientation.


And now that I read that, qinwamascot, you're kind of baiting with the sarcasm up there.

Instead of being a jerk about a point that needs elaboration, just say it needs elaboration. And instead of acting high and mighty because you know more about something than someone else does, SHARE that knowledge so that we can at least all be on the same page.

Regarding qinwamascot and his children, the point he's trying to make is that that how much he is willing trust someone who is open about their pedophilia, and who does not want to act on it. That trust outweighs the risk he feels his children would be in. Every parent puts their children at risk every day - letting them go to school, friends' houses, playgrounds. If you disagree with this, that's fine, but realize his position isn't that he doesn't give a fuck about his kids, it's that he values the fuck out of freedom and trust.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:25 am UTC

Nougatrocity wrote:Mane, you're being an asshole. That's far more detrimental to conversation than misformated quotes.

Mane wrote:
qinwamascot wrote:Great job. You have said they are different. But you haven't specified how. I'm so impressed I think I'll not believe you. Perhaps if you went more in depth than "homosexuality was never a paraphilia" then I *might* consider what you have to say.


Wow, really. You can't figure it? I really don't *care* whether or not you consider what I have to say, because I know I'm right, I know Pedophilia is not the same thing as a sexual orientation, if you knew anything about what a Paraphilia was, you'd understand why there is a difference. Further more, if you understood what Paraphilia is classified as, such as strong urges to have sex with children, you'd realize that 'having strong urges to have sex with children' is not the same as a sexual orientation.


And now that I read that, qinwamascot, you're kind of baiting with the sarcasm up there.

Instead of being a jerk about a point that needs elaboration, just say it needs elaboration. And instead of acting high and mighty because you know more about something than someone else does, SHARE that knowledge so that we can at least all be on the same page.


This is true. I was angry at the time for a totally unrelated reason, and I took it out on Mane. I apologize for this...it was undignified of me and should not happen again. I hope we can respectfully disagree in the future.

Regarding qinwamascot and his children, the point he's trying to make is that that how much he is willing trust someone who is open about their pedophilia, and who does not want to act on it. That trust outweighs the risk he feels his children would be in. Every parent puts their children at risk every day - letting them go to school, friends' houses, playgrounds. If you disagree with this, that's fine, but realize his position isn't that he doesn't give a fuck about his kids, it's that he values the fuck out of freedom and trust.


Just to clarify, I don't actually have any kids, but this is an accurate depiction of my position. Just to elaborate a little, what I am saying is that if someone comes out in the open to me, they are entrusting me with something extremely important. People don't just go breaking trust you put in them. If I had any doubts about the person, of course I wouldn't do such a thing. But if that person is willing to entrust me with something as personal as that, then I can trust him enough that he won't rape my kid for an hour or two. Especially since, as I mentioned before, I've got security cameras up all over the place anyway, so he wouldn't be able to get away with anything in the long run.

Thank you for clarifying. I'm fairly sleep deprived right now and my posts aren't making sense or even showing the right level of respect for others. Hopefully once I get a good amount of sleep on Friday I will be able to post meaningful things again. Until then, feel free to disregard anything I write that looks idiotic--it probably is.
Quiznos>Subway

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:35 am UTC

qinwamascot wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:In general I like short, thin, cute and small breasted or flat-chested girls.


Maybe I should elaborate.

Those traits that I like are usually associated with children or prepubescence. Under the definition of paedophilia you're using, would I be a paedophile?

I don't think we can discuss this until we agree on a definition to use for the discussion.


I doubt anyone will object regardless of what definition you pick. If you want to argue that you are a pedophile, choose a definition that frames it in that context. From what I've read about the dA person, I can't really gather much about him. although he does call his interests "lolicon" at one point.


Except my point is nothing about whether I'm a paedophile or not. It doesn't even matter if what I was saying is true or false. My point was simply that the attraction to the property of being a child and attraction of properties often associated with childen and prepubescence are entirely different things.

The dA person does indeed mention lolicon, but lolicon can refer to two things. In fact the exact two things I am talking about.

I think there is a possibility that many people here are talking about one of those things (Attraction to children) and many are talking about the other (Attraction to childlike characteristic). The dA person does claim that (s)he is a paedophile, but that could stem from similar ambiguities between the terms.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:49 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Except my point is nothing about whether I'm a paedophile or not. It doesn't even matter if what I was saying is true or false. My point was simply that the attraction to the property of being a child and attraction of properties often associated with childen and prepubescence are entirely different things.

The dA person does indeed mention lolicon, but lolicon can refer to two things. In fact the exact two things I am talking about.

I think there is a possibility that many people here are talking about one of those things (Attraction to children) and many are talking about the other (Attraction to childlike characteristic). The dA person does claim that (s)he is a paedophile, but that could stem from similar ambiguities between the terms.


Unfortunately, as far as I know, no one on this forum would have that information, so if it really makes a big difference what you think about it, then the best you can do is assume one or the other or write down each case. Probably more people here are thinking of the first (attraction to children) when they are framing their arguments, but I can't speak for everyone.
Quiznos>Subway

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:55 am UTC

qinwamascot wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:Except my point is nothing about whether I'm a paedophile or not. It doesn't even matter if what I was saying is true or false. My point was simply that the attraction to the property of being a child and attraction of properties often associated with childen and prepubescence are entirely different things.

The dA person does indeed mention lolicon, but lolicon can refer to two things. In fact the exact two things I am talking about.

I think there is a possibility that many people here are talking about one of those things (Attraction to children) and many are talking about the other (Attraction to childlike characteristic). The dA person does claim that (s)he is a paedophile, but that could stem from similar ambiguities between the terms.


Unfortunately, as far as I know, no one on this forum would have that information, so if it really makes a big difference what you think about it, then the best you can do is assume one or the other or write down each case. Probably more people here are thinking of the first (attraction to children) when they are framing their arguments, but I can't speak for everyone.


Sure, no one will know which the dA person actually is. But if we're going to discuss whether it's a pathology or not, or whether it's just a preference or not, or whether it's what ever then we have to clearly define which we're talking about.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:59 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Sure, no one will know which the dA person actually is. But if we're going to discuss whether it's a pathology or not, or whether it's just a preference or not, or whether it's what ever then we have to clearly define which we're talking about.


Agreed. It seems most people have already assumed the definition that he is attracted to children, not childish things in general (if anyone was using the other definition please feel free to contradict me) so we should frame our arguments based on that.
Quiznos>Subway

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Kachi » Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Bah, as if it isn't hard enough to keep up with this discussion, I lost my post. Paraphrasing myself and without dancing around sensitivity.

I think, if we're running off the 15% figure, it's not some small group of perpetrators, but that it more often is the case that many people are responsible for victimizing one or two (or zero) children that they are close to. I wouldn't be surprised if as many as 5% of the population were perpetrators at some point.

What seems to happen more often is that someone the child is very close to victimizes them, and if it is dealt with at all, then it is addressed within the family or social circle. I know of at least two incidents where this has been the case. I know no one wants to admit that the problem could be so widespread, but you probably know someone who has or will, and they may even be someone you are very close to. We probably don't even have half the room we would need in our prisons.

I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but I don't think so.

Personally I have suspicions that the problem may be tied to the onset of sexual maturity. Think of it this way-- some children begin to experience the effects of sexual maturity at very early ages-- sometimes ten or so. If as a ten year old boy, you begin to have sexual feelings, they may very well be targeted towards girls around your own age, and you may never lose those feelings, or acquire feelings for more mature females. They might even be latent feelings that you didn't really consider at the time, but manifested when you were older. Since it's very unlikely that you would develop sexual feelings and then lose them just because you grew older, this would make sense. I know, everyone likes to imagine that grandpa likes women his own age, but he probably likes them as young as he ever did.

Obviously, this is purely speculative and is an incomplete theory, but it may shed some light onto why this happens.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Malice » Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:22 am UTC

I don't think it matters what he's attracted to or not. Either way, he shouldn't be screwing children, and either way, we shouldn't be forcing treatment or punishment on him before he's done anything, unless he asks for it.

He can find outlets for his desires if he wants, even if he's only attracted to children. In fact, apparently that's what he does--draws and views images of kids, presumably for his own gratification. Periodic release is going to help keep him sane and law-abiding.

By the way, I'd also like to see stats on pedophiles versus molesters, if anybody has any. I think the figures on abused kids are a poor substitute, although it might become more useful if you combined them with stats of the average number of times a known offender offends.
Image

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Kachi » Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:29 am UTC

I asked for that in my original post, but I forgot to put it back in. I would be very surprised if it were "even" 5 each offender on average, which if we run with the 15% figure, would put us at, what, 3% of the population?

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Malice » Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:58 am UTC

A quick Google gives me a website (admittedly, a biased one) listing the figure 117.
Image

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Kachi » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:05 am UTC

Hmm, that sounds... laughably exaggerated, but maybe I'm way off base. That seems to me to be the kind of number that would be inferred from taking the number of victims and dividing by the number of suspected perpetrators. I certainly don't see any sources. I mean, the average is 117? So your average child molester diddles 117 kids? So for the ones that do only do 1 or 2, some other child molesters are working double time? People are molesting 200 kids before they get caught? No, without a really good source I'd have to insist that that's just an effort to sensationalize these people as monsters.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Kachi » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:18 am UTC

Ok, here's this. I'm not sure how biased this source might be, as it does talk about homosexual pedophilia, and could have misinterpreted that data as has been known to happen with such research. Some of the information pertaining to that is almost definitely inaccurate, but as at least a -better- point of reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y4lZd-rTIxEC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=average+number+of+children+molested+by+pedophile&source=web&ots=6WmvtRlMF9&sig=pTuNwqDBNvGMpMlkc3exVn5XUjw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA49,M1

According to this, for males, the average heterosexual pedophile had molested 20 girls, and the average homosexual pedophile had molested 150 boys. Now it's important to note that this data is clearly misrepresented, at least for the boys, as has been discussed in other reports, but also important to note, is that the book says that these were likely among the very -worst- 100 offenders.

It goes on to report that for non-incestuous (who may even be the minority of child molesters), the average of those studied was less than 4 boys or 5 girls.


Oh, on second look... That book is The Nature of Homosexuality, which is not at all a reliable source, but at least cites some less inflammatory figures (it says things like, "If a drug is out there, male homosexuals use it.") Meh, it was just my first google hit.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Malice » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:40 am UTC

This seems to be the most reputable source so far, although it's a book, so I can't check first-hand.

The claims specific to our question are:

Pedophiles commit more than 10 times as many sexual acts against children as do non-pedophile molesters. On average, a molester with pedophilia commits 70.8 molestation acts. On average, a molester without pedophilia commits 6.5 acts. This group of pedophiles committed 95 percent of the acts for a total of 171,973 versus only 5 percent of the acts for non-pedophiles.

The number of child victims and acts per molester depended on whether the molester targeted girls, boys or both. Those molesting only girls averaged 5.2 victims and 34.2 acts. Those molesting only boys averaged 10.7 victims and 52 acts. Those molesting both averaged 27.3 victims and 120.9 acts.


Clearly the discrepancy between "about 5" and "about 100" was the difference between victims and acts.
Image

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Kachi » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:49 am UTC

Yeah, that seems a bit more consistent with the other sources I've eyeballed. It's impossible to get a consensus, and considering these only deal with those who were either incarcerated or sought treatment on their own, I would expect that we still have a significantly higher representation of victims than offenders. Even at the most conservative estimate, I'd still have to guess that we're talking about 0.5% of the entire population.

Well, I always suspected that it was more prevalent than people were willing to believe, but actually it seems like it's quite a bit more prevalent than even -I- thought. :/

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby mochafairy » Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:00 am UTC

This wrote:Pedophiles commit more than 10 times as many sexual acts against children as do non-pedophile molesters. On average, a molester with pedophilia commits 70.8 molestation acts. On average, a molester without pedophilia commits 6.5 acts. This group of pedophiles committed 95 percent of the acts for a total of 171,973 versus only 5 percent of the acts for non-pedophiles.

The number of child victims and acts per molester depended on whether the molester targeted girls, boys or both. Those molesting only girls averaged 5.2 victims and 34.2 acts. Those molesting only boys averaged 10.7 victims and 52 acts. Those molesting both averaged 27.3 victims and 120.9 acts.


Oh joy...I'm ahead of the curve...
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:16 am UTC

What are the definitions of "molestation" and I'm guessing that they're definition of "paedophile" in this case is not "Anyone who sexually abuses children" but rather "People with a sexual attraction to the property of being a child" so I guess it's possible with the 2nd definition to have molesters who molest children but who are no paedophilic.

Also, is this victims over life time? I'm guessing so. These numbers really need to be put into context.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

Flayer
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Flayer » Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:23 am UTC

By the definitions of the above posts, this self-proclaimed 'pedophile' is not even one, since he has not molested any children. Unless these average numbers actually represent everyone who has not yet 'come out' in terms of being a pedophile in the 'attracted to children' sense.

Also, to the person who said he 'knows' that pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality ... how? The inner workings of the mind are rather unknown to us? I am assuming that there is some part of the unconcious/subconcious/unused mind which causes the sexual attraction towards the same sex, and not some sort of genetic thing or whatever. You cannot base the inner workings of a person's mind on the definition of a word that is made up by the same people (ie. everyone) who have feelings of any kind.

In that same train of thought,the word pedophile is simply that: a word. You can also be a urophile and enjoy having people pee on you. This can also be considered a paraphilia. The words themselves are labels that are not generally capable of describing a person's full range of emotions and feelings on a single subject.


Of course, that is just my opinion, and these are all semantics that aren't even interesting. If the person does not commit any crimes, he should not be put in jail. He is not psychotic and completely devoid of reason, so he should not be put into a clinic if that is not his choice. If he feels he is going to lose control, right now, based on the fact that he is willing to somewhat openly discuss this, I believe he will seek the proper help himself.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Belial » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:03 pm UTC

I am assuming that there is some part of the unconcious/subconcious/unused mind which causes the sexual attraction towards the same sex, and not some sort of genetic thing or whatever.


Slightly OT, but: That's a big and largely baseless assumption. There is a fair amount of research demonstrating a neurophysiological difference between heterosexual and homosexual brains. And in at least a couple animal species, they've isolated a gene which causes homosexuality.

So, I wouldn't place any money on that.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Mane
21th Century African?
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:56 pm UTC

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Mane » Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:29 pm UTC

Nougatrocity wrote:Mane, you're being an asshole. That's far more detrimental to conversation than misformated quotes.
Not if I can't read what's been written; You wouldn't want people coming here and writing whole posts out in 'leet' would you? If two people can't understand one another, the discussion simply can't exist can it?


Instead of being a jerk about a point that needs elaboration, just say it needs elaboration. And instead of acting high and mighty because you know more about something than someone else does, SHARE that knowledge so that we can at least all be on the same page.

I've exploited of qinwamascot to give his reasoning for why Paraphilias and Sexual orientations should be concerded the same, but he hasn't come back with any sort of reply other then 'everyone gets sexual urges'

If you disagree with this,

I disagree with his assertions that if a pedophile tells you they're a pedophile, it's alright to let them be alone with your kids because you'll be sure to set up recording devices and make sure to catch them in the act.

Like I said, that's sort of like letting a known Serial killer into your home to watch the kids because you'll set up recording devices and make sure the catch them if they do kill your kids; recording the pedophile/Serial killer isn't going to un-rape your child, or bring them back from the dead, and it's extremely foolish to gamble your children on the pretense that they're 'trust-worthy'.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Princess Marzipan » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:37 pm UTC

Mane wrote:Like I said, that's sort of like letting a known Serial killer into your home to watch the kids because you'll set up recording devices and make sure the catch them if they do kill your kids; recording the pedophile/Serial killer isn't going to un-rape your child, or bring them back from the dead, and it's extremely foolish to gamble your children on the pretense that they're 'trust-worthy'.


No, that would be like letting a known child molester watch your kids.

Pedophile != child molester.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Artemisia
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:18 am UTC
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Artemisia » Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:18 pm UTC

Falmarri wrote:
Artemisia wrote:
Kachi wrote: Let's just call it what it is-- a very unfortunate sexual orientation to have.

I, however, can state I did not like what was happening, and experienced great shame when I finally understood what it was.


I hope this doesn't start a shitstorm and I don't mean to be personal here, this is purely meant hypothetically and theoretically. But are you sure that experiencing great shame and disliking what happened is inherent? Or is it because society says it's bad, so you automatically feel bad about it? What I'm asking is, why do those of you who think that is inherently impossible to have any sexual contact with any "underage" person without it being harmful think that?

I don't mind, it's a fair question.

Studies have proven* that sexual contact with underage (<15) children is harmful in 98% of all cases. 2% therefore did like it, and didn't find it a harmful experience later in life.
So, it is not impossible to have good sexual contact with underage children. And admittedly, I think the grey area starts around the age of 12, when kids start to explore their sexuality, knowing what they are doing, with masturbation, and in some extremer cases even sex.

*(Dutch source - it's quoted in one of the responses)

[trigger warning ahead - contains details]
Spoiler:
I was 9 at the time, or well, something like that. I was abused by someone who was 17 at the time, very much aware of what he was doing and why. And, more importantly, knowing that it was bad to do stuff like that with young kids. I blame him for consciously performing sexual acts with me whilst I was not aware of what it was. I was just being a kid, curious, thinking it was some sort of a naughty game. Only, it wasn't fun. It was mostly weird, and sometimes it hurt. So after a few times I wasn't so keen on going upstairs with him anymore. I knew instinctively he wouldn't do it if I stayed amongst other people.
Then, when I told my brother about it, he found it rather fun to pursue this exploration, in stead of helping me. He abused my trust in him, which hurts, thinking back. Not only that, he had more chance to do it than the other guy, so less chance for me to avoid it, and he blackmailed me as well. And, quite frankly, his games weren't fun either.
So, I am very sure that as a kid I didn't like it.
Later in life I came to realise what kind of things they had made me do. It was exciting at first, but I was so clueless, I can hardly bear the thought that both of them consciously made me do things I had no clue of what they were. Thinking back of that just hurts so much - why would anyone enjoy a sex act with someone that young, being that clueless (and senseless - it didn't DO anything for me) about the whole thing?!

I became a little older, started learning about what sex was, started to masturbate and exploring sexual feelings and such. By 13/14 I was fully aware of sex, how to do it and would possibly not have been harmed if I had done it with someone at the time, even if he had been older. I ended up having sex for the first time at 16, which, looking back, was before I was actually ready BUT was consensual so I don't experience that as a harmful memory. The fact that it was consensual makes it ok. I knew what I was doing, and why.

The abuse certainly did not harm me because society says it's bad. I started having flashbacks, painful memories of performing sexual acts without knowing what and why. I wish both guys had just left me alone with my sexually loaded silly barbiedolls play, which is certainly not weird at that age (because yes, young children have sexual desire - just NOT THE SAME as adults!). I wish I had been left alone to explore my own sexuality at my own pace. Yes the blackmailing was bad at the time, and yes, the day my mum found out was the most shameful one in my life (possibly more harmful than what was happening at the time - especially because she made me feel I was the only one at fault), but I am 100% sure that it felt wrong later because it WAS, not because anyone told me it should be. I experienced shame and embarrasment because somebody else used my innocence to make me perform sexual acts, without them being AS innocent. So even though I might have agreed at the time, knowing what I know now would have made a difference. But that choice was consciously taken away from me by someone else.
And, despite the fact that my mum at the time made me feel it was my fault, I came to realise that it could not have been my fault at all since I am sure that I was innocent, quite literally. Without people "helping" me who knew about sex, my exploration of it would have been innocent, and would have been unharmful.

To explain this further: I have also started self-harming because I felt that urge, not because I had read about it. Actually, I wanted to die and tried to slid my wrists but I failed, and felt the burning of my wrist relieving pain so I started to inflict pain not because I wanted to die but because it made me feel better.
I am sure there are people who have experienced abuse as a child as bad because others say it should be bad, as well as there are people out there who self-harm out of group-pressure, or because people say it's cool. However, I do not think this is a majority.

Kachi wrote:
Im a little ambiguous on this. As a victim of child abuse, I am not very willing to admit it's something society should be fine with, even if it's unpracticed.


Do you want to reword that? Are you suggesting that society should have a problem with people who aren't actually causing problems, but would want to do those things if it didn't actually cause problems? For example, you don't think society should be fine with someone having a rape fantasy, even if they would never actually rape someone? What about daydreaming about robbing a bank, or punching someone you dislike in the face?

I think the issue here is that people can't control it, and it has never been successfully cured. It's been in practice since recorded history and almost certainly before that. Like it or not, these people are here and will continue to be. Writing them off as unacceptable is no way to deal with them.

I have actually pondered the legality and practicality of a sort of pedophile help service. There are countless unreported claims of sexual abuse against children, usually by someone the child knows. The child absolutely will not report these cases often because they don't want the person to go to jail. Perhaps if there was some service that children could go to to report these incidents without the threat of legal recourse for the assailant, they would be more willing to step forward. Then that service could be used as a sort of intermediary to ensure the child's safety and provide help for the assailant.

I am not saying society should have a problem with people who aren't causing problems. I was stating that I had difficulties, as a survivor, accepting that society would be fine with paedophiles, because I know how harmful it can be if they act upon their desires sexually towards small children.
I am fully aware of the fact that having fantasies (regardless of their nature) isn't, and in my view also definitely should not be, forbidden.

I agree with you that writing paedophilia off as unacceptible is not the way to deal with it. Paedophilia has been literally around for ages, and is definitely an existing sexual preference (or whatever you want to call it). I don't think it's a disorder, because I don't believe it's treatable. I can go with the "unfortunate sexual preference". It doesn't necessarily mean that they can ONLY be aroused by kids. There are paedophiles who have sex/relationships with other adults.

What I do find important is that ALL paedophiles recognise the risk of harming a child when acting upon their sexual desires.
In my research (which I did because I was curious about the phenomenon and wondered what drove people to want to have sex with kids), I have found repeated proof that a lot of them still think it's ok in some cases to have sex with kids. They put in disclaimers like "it should be done right", as in - no blackmail, pushing, letting it do whatever it wants without wanting a sexual reward in return.
To which I can only reply: in no case it's ok.

Regarding your paedophile help service: I don't think it works. The problem is that a kid doesn't know who to turn to, and despite people not believing the weird reactions one can get, there really are a LOT of people who give weird reactions, like disbelief, ignorance, blaming the kid, etc.
The only successful way of getting them to talk is to inform the ones they are close to that there is a suspicion, and get the child to talk about it. Then the problem arises: what if one of the people they are close to is doing it? If you give them information about how to deal with it, they also know better how to cover it up.
I doubt it will ever be successful. I dont think as a kid I would ever go to such an organisation. I was just way too young for an initiative like that. I'd be able to as a teenager, though.

Nougatrocity wrote:Anyone who thinks this man is a terrible person or a monster really needs to examine their ideas of morality.

Artemisia, I'm particularly bothered by your statement that society should not be okay with his inclination. I'm hoping I'm just misreading the context and that you don't actually think that merely having the sexual wiring this man does should result in a negative societal impact for you. If this person acts on those urges, then yes, we very obviously have a problem.

This goes beyond a victimless crime and is in fact a victimless...nothing. There is absolutely no effect on society as a whole from his willfully repressed sexual desire.

This is something that society as a whole generally wants to sweep under the rug and pretend doesn't happen, and when it does happen, those who do it are terrible terrible people and are the worst of the worst.

I definitely don't think the man should be judged on his sexual preference alone, as I stated here before. Nor do I think he should be forced to be treated. A psychologist would do him good, maybe, to help him deal with it, yes. But it shouldn't be mandatory. He is not a child abuser just because he fantasises about sex with kids. As has been said before, it's the same as someone fantasising about rape doesn't make them a rapist.
The most important for me, as I explained before, is that paedophiles realise they should NEVER act upon their desires, because in a lot of cases this harms the child. And they can never judge when this is, or isn't the case. Unfortunately there are a lot of those who do not recognise this, and only refrain from touching kids because the law forbids it. I think THOSE are a lot more difficult to stop when they get the chance, or a mentioned "moment of weakness".

I stated in my first post already that I think it's WRONG to make people suppress their sexual desires. For instance, in strict Christian communities, where sex is taboo, the number of incest cases is dramatically higher than in average mixed populations. The desire for hardcore/weird fetish porn in those communities is ALSO significantly higher than in average mixed populations.

Based on that, I think the number of kids being harmed would actually decrease if paedophilia, as JUST an unpracticed sexual fetish, is more accepted.

But the harmed child in me screams and cringes at the thought of accepting something that has hurt me so much (and still affects my life).
This too shall pass

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Princess Marzipan » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:19 pm UTC

Well it seems like you're separating your initial emotional reaction from the logically and most all-around beneficial way of thinking, which is actually commendable. In fact, it's exactly what we're asking of the person in question. You both feel one way but act another because you know the feelings are ultimately negative and cause harm.

We agree completely that pedophilia should never actually be practiced, but that the inclination does not make a person terrible.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Kachi » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:04 pm UTC

I concur, and I'd like to thank Artemisia for sharing that.

It occurs to me that there are really no significant preventative efforts in regards to pedophiles themselves. I mean, we teach our children about "good touch/bad touch" and what to do if it ever happens, but we never seem to treat them as potential pedophiles and warn them about how harmful these actions can be to others, and just how severe the consequences can be. I would be willing to wager that at least a substantial number of offenders, if not the majority, are unaware of how serious the repercussions can be (not from a legal standpoint, but to the victim).

So, what does everyone think about, for example, if after children reached, let's say, high school, they were to attend a program which discussed the severity of child molestation? Too graphic? Too likely to stir up their own past traumas? More likely to give these potential pedophiles "ideas"?

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby qinwamascot » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:12 pm UTC

So, what does everyone think about, for example, if after children reached, let's say, high school, they were to attend a program which discussed the severity of child molestation? Too graphic? Too likely to stir up their own past traumas? More likely to give these potential pedophiles "ideas"?


I think pedophilia is something you're born with. Sending people to such a program would be irrelevant for most. For abused people, many would not be willing to share their stories, and it would probably be like reliving the event. For the pedophiles, they wouldn't pay attention at that point, because if you don't have a good set of morals by the time you're 14, it may be too late for you.

Plus, it's a relatively small percentage of the population. We expect people to teach their children why murder is bad, even though they will never see their children as murderers. I don't see a big difference for rape (whether of children or adults).
Quiznos>Subway

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Kachi » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:25 pm UTC

I think pedophilia is something you're born with. Sending people to such a program would be irrelevant for most.


It wouldn't be targeted to only those people-- it would be a child molestation awareness type seminar. You say it would be irrelevant for most, but I'm not sure they'd agree. They may not be the future child molester, but they may be the future parent of a victimized child. I think many parents aren't even prepared to grapple with the severity of the issue.

It's not to prevent people from turning in to pedophiles, but to make them aware of the very real harm that child molestation does.

For abused people, many would not be willing to share their stories, and it would probably be like reliving the event.


People frequently do. There could be third party accounts. It could even be a video. Trust me, there are people that are willing to share their pain, especially if they know it might prevent it from happening to someone else.

For the pedophiles, they wouldn't pay attention at that point, because if you don't have a good set of morals by the time you're 14, it may be too late for you.


You're going to have to defend this statement. First you're assuming that they just won't pay attention. Secondly you're assuming that this is an entirely moral issue. The problem we're discussing is if these people even fully appreciate the amoral nature of these actions, as a matter of being informed, not being "evil people."

Plus, it's a relatively small percentage of the population. We expect people to teach their children why murder is bad, even though they will never see their children as murderers. I don't see a big difference for rape (whether of children or adults).


It's a small percentage that has a large effect on a significant percentage of the population. The fact is that parents DON'T teach their children about this because they always picture their child the victim, never the future offender (and frankly, sometimes they don't address the issue at all).

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Intercept » Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:56 am UTC

What Kachi is saying that most parents don't have a conversation like this with their kids:

"Son, you know you should never touch a girl in her private places, unless she asks for it. But not even then really. It's wrong and illegal and could lead to a lot of problems."

Short but firm conversations from parents and respected authority figures have a lot of impact and really stick out in your memory. It sticks out in mine. If you have actual victims and a focus on this? Yes, it will impact people, potentially before they ever have the urge. Am I saying it will make people not be pedophiles? No, but when they have any sort of even minor urge for the first time their thought will be that it is unnatural and harmful and will brush it off.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby mochafairy » Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:47 am UTC

Kachi wrote:The fact is that parents DON'T teach their children about this because they always picture their child the victim, never the future offender (and frankly, sometimes they don't address the issue at all).


To quote myself in another thread:
Spoiler:
mochafairy wrote:The summer between fourth and fifth is interesting. My parents are obviously very preoccupied with a new child with medical problems on the way. The first time anything happened was in a hotel on family vacation. I had gotten out of the shower, wrapped in a towel. My dad was out getting us food, my mom asleep on one of the beds. I didn’t want to wake her, and I didn’t know where my clothes were. So, I curled up under the blankets on the other bed, still with the towel. My older brother later emerged from the shower. I didn’t feel like talking, so I just pretended to be asleep. He crawled into bed with me, which was normal. We were sharing the bed on the trip. We used all the extra pillows to divide the bed in two. But somehow, the pillow barrier didn’t matter anymore. He didn’t rape me then, just…touching.
Fifth grade started the hell. Every week to every other week. The only time I slept was the night after it happened. I knew that nothing was going to happen on those nights. My parents were busy taking care of my little brother. Poopy diapers don’t change themselves.
My parents would use my older brother and me as built in baby sitters. It was good for them. Not so good for me. I switched schools after fifth grade, and then again after sixth. Things pretty much remained the same during those years.
At the end of seventh grade, I became sick. I obviously wasn’t sleeping well. That’s when we found out I was also type 1 diabetic. That’s when it stopped. I’ve tried rationalizing that time period, those 2 and a half years. The closest I’ve come is this: his life was living hell when he was in fifth through seventh grade. Maybe that’s why he started. Maybe he stopped because he realized how sick I was. I don’t know.
I became insanely depressed after that. I tried blaming other people for all the crap in my life, but I couldn’t do it. In my head, everything was my fault, from my parents being stressed to me being raped to me being depressed. I attempted suicide quite frequently over the next year, but could never follow through. I’d give myself huge amounts of insulin before I’d go to sleep and then take Nyquil or Benadryl or something to try and keep me asleep. I always woke up, shaking from hypoglycemia. I was such a loser, I couldn’t even follow through with that. I knew that if anyone in my family found out that it’d destroy them. I knew that I’d have to keep this a secret from them, for their sakes.
But my hell bound life didn’t end there. I started high school, at the same school my brother went to. I’m emotionally unstable to start with, and this school was nicknamed “prison” for a reason. It was a fight for yourself or die trying school. The only person who was going to look out for you was you. The only people I knew walking in there were my older brother and his friends. I became cynical, beyond reason. All guys were asses. They were to be used and dumped. It was better to have it that way than have some punk-ass rich kid do it to you. I had people cut my hair in the middle of class (my hair was down to my waist. Some little bitches thought it’d be funny to cut some of my hair up to my shoulders. They never got in trouble.), I had guys try to pull my pants down while I was walking by (this was no unique to me. There’s a hallway were all the drunk horny guys hang out. Unfortunately, this hallway is the only way to get to some of the rooms), and every day, I had to go to school and come home with my older brother.
I tried to forget everything, let it float away in the space time continuum. I’d have flashbacks, waking up in a sweat. I’d check to make sure my underwear was still on, the door closed, my little piece of tape still there.
Sophomore year was better. I switched schools (on the claim for better academics, which this new school did have.) He was away at college. I finally started sleeping slightly better. I’d still have flashbacks. I still hated my room. I still was insanely depressed. But I was a smidge closer to being better. Around Christmas break, I became too comfortable in my new environment. I became friends with guys on the debate team. I let them give me congratulation hugs. I even let my boyfriend at the time kiss me. And then I snapped. I suddenly realized that he was coming home. I blurted. I only told about the first incident, nothing more. They doubted me, but gave me my space.
At the end of the year, my new friends decided to go do some insanely stupid stuff (nearly killed a kid) and we had a falling out.
So, my junior year was like freshman year. I had no friends. I was harassed every time I walked into the cafeteria (a friend of former friend would shout at the top of his lungs “<insert real name here> is a whore! She’ll do you for $5 max!” and other things along those lines). Physics, Calculus, and Japanese were the only things keeping me there and that kept me from snapping. I finally made a couple of new friends. ...My boyfriend was pretending to care enough to tell all of them to “fuck off or be fucked off.” I became dependant. I couldn’t walk through the halls of that school by myself without someone making a comment about me being a slut. If he was there, they wouldn’t say anything. Of course my physics, calculus, and Japanese buddies didn’t do that to me, at least to my face. This boyfriend was smart enough to realize how dependant I was. He also happened to be mildly friends with my friends from the previous year. So, he found out. He put two and two together and then used it to his advantage. He’d walk me to class if I’d do y for him. It was never that explicit, more like “I love you so much that I walk you to class. If you loved me back…” I don’t know when I realized he was using me. I frankly don’t care. I broke it off. I realized that it didn’t matter who walked with me to class. They were still going to talk. He was very pissed that I had dumped him. So, he started harassing what friends I had left around school. He’d stalk them on the internet. He’d tell them lies. He threatened them. I couldn’t take it anymore. His fight was with me, not them. So, I got everyone to print off what he’d sent them, written statements of what he’d done off line, and then handed the near half ream worth of paper to the principal and told him to do something about it. When very pissed ex boyfriend was brought into the office, now facing felony charges, he did the only thing he could to turn the focus off of him: he told them that I had been raped.
So, of course they have to have me come down to the social worker’s office. I don’t know whether I regret answering the way I did. I still wonder what would’ve happened if I had lied. I know that my parents wouldn’t be put in the middle of my stupidity. I know that my parents wouldn’t think of me as an attention whore.
They sent me to counseling, once a week. They put me on anti-depressants. They made my older brother go to counseling as well, but I think it was more to just look like they cared. The counseling helped. My dr’s don’t want to take me off the anti-depressants, because we’ve tried and it’s bad. I miss a day and I have to restrain myself from taking a razor to my wrists.
Things are much better now. I have the best boyfriend ever. I’ve told him what happened, and he took it way better than expected (it was about 8-9 months after we started dating and I felt that I could trust him. I don’t regret letting him know at all.) My little brother can be a little bugger sometimes, but I love the little guy to piece. I’ll do anything to protect his innocence. My parents tell themselves that I just got really depressed after I became ill. My older brother is the golden child who can do no wrong. After all my parents have been through, I’m not mad at them. Sure, they sometimes do really stupid things like making the two of us spend “quality” time together, but they’re my parents


spoiler'd for being so long. That's not my entire post, just the parts that are somewhat relevant to this thread.

I don't know what parents of abusers are supposed to do. I don't know what goes through their minds. I don't know how they are even supposed to cope with the fact that a monster has their DNA. I don't know how they're supposed to start up that type of conversation.

edit'd for failing at tags
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Kachi » Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:01 am UTC

What I was suggesting, is that a good start of "what to do" is to talk about it before it even becomes an issue.

Also, I know how strongly you must feel, but I firmly disagree with calling these people monsters.

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby mochafairy » Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:19 am UTC

a person who repeatedly rapes a child isn't a monster?
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Kachi » Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:22 am UTC

No. As you said yourself, they're a person.

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby mochafairy » Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:35 am UTC

Okay. I see what you're saying.

Yes, they are a person. They can be intelligent, charming, helpful, charitable, and even kind. These parts are not are what I was referring to.

The part of a person that can harm someone again and again like that, that is the monster.

I'm sorry. I should've been more clear.
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie

Kachi
Publicly Posts Private Messages
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere except SB.

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby Kachi » Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:37 am UTC

As long as we can accept that otherwise good people have the capacity to do terrible things, I have no qualms.

mrandrewv
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:30 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Re: Paedophile comes out on DeviantArt

Postby mrandrewv » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:51 am UTC

Has anyone raised the question of whether it's ok for young'uns to sexually experiment with each other?

I mean it seems that the unfair power-relation between a child and an adult are what cause most the problems associated with sexual abuse, due to the helplessness, manipulation, loss of choice, disempowerment etc.

But what if 2 consenting 12 year olds have sex with each other? In the US they would both go on the sex offender list (depending on the state of course.)

@Belial: you said "Treatment is not punishment."
Well actually it depends. In communist Russia many people who were against the oppressive system were judged "mad" and sent to asylums. That is definitely punishment. Some countries also tried to "cure" homosexuality with electro shcok treatment. Definitely punishment.

And relevant to the topic at hand: there is a program being set up in California (I don't know if it is already in place) where sex offenders, who have completed their sentences will be confined to a "treatment" facility for unspecified period of time, even if in the eyes of the law they are no longer guilty of anything. The reason why this is allowed to happen is because the supreme coutr has said that being confined to an area and not being allowed to leave is not a kind of "punishment", and this you do not need to be guilty of something to qualify.

:(

So while I do believe that some kind of supportive therapy is vital if these individuals are going to resist this illness I do not believe that infringing on the rights of people who haven't done anything wrong is going to help. And as a therapist myself I can tell you now: if someone is forced into therapy the chances of it succeeding drop through the floor.
It's all very interesting...


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests