Pedophilephobia

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

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Shivahn » Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:57 pm UTC

Mahou wrote:For clarification, you do vote for judges in Ohio. And clearly drawings are a very different case from exploiting kids for photographs. Pity our legal system often seems to be too stupid to see that. Prosecuting someone for drawing pictures is the definition of a victimless crime.


It's not the legal system that's too stupid. It's the people as a whole, and specifically the legislators they vote for. Stuff like illegalizing drawn art is often written straight into the criminal code, as though that's somehow helping someone somewhere.

(Also, prosecuting someone for drawing pictures has a victim, but I think you meant that drawing pictures was a victimless crime :P)

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Diadem » Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:13 pm UTC

pizzazz wrote:And it becomes nearly impossible to remove a judge from office unless they committ a serious crime or are in fact mentally ill to the point of being unable to do their job.

If you ruin a 17 year old girl's life because of some nude pictures then you both commited a serious crime and are in fact mentally ill by any reasonable definition of the words 'serious crime' and 'mentally ill'.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Whimsical Eloquence
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:29 am UTC
Location: Ireland

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Whimsical Eloquence » Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:53 pm UTC

Hemmers wrote:i.e. to be pedophilia, one partner has to be 18+, and the other has to be under 16 (and the elder partner has to know they are under 16). There is a defence if the younger partner has gone to lengths to conceal their true age (there is recent case history because the 14 year old girl had gone to great lengths on Facebook to fake the school she was at, conceal her true age, used make up to look older, etc, etc. The court concluded that she knew what she was doing and he reasonably believed she was legal).

Sections 5-8 of the same act deal with sex with children under 13, which is an absolute offence and there is no "reasonable belief" clause.


No. This is precisely the problem. To be a paedophile one has to have an erotic fixation for pre-pubescent minors. That's it. The Law doesn't decide whether you're a paedophile or not, or at least it shouldn't. It's as if we say a female who raped another female is a "convicted Lesbian". The practice of saying "a convicted paedophile is one I find quite prevalent, even in broadsheets, and idiotic. It only serves to confuse the issue more. Furthermore, having paedophiles specifically aren't interested in post-pubescent even if they're under the age of consent (that's Ephebophilia). Finally, many of those who commit child molestation (both pre- and post- pubescent) may not have any particular erotic fixation but instead a plethora of other psychological issues or are just plain malicious.

Personally, I'd like to commend every Paedophile out there who has never acted on their urges and inclinations but who instead practice celibacy. We've reach the point where we don't blame people for their sexual attraction but we do for their actions.
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
~ Soren Kierkegaard

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:20 pm UTC

Whimsical Eloquence wrote:Personally, I'd like to commend every Paedophile out there who has never acted on their urges and inclinations but who instead practice celibacy.
Is that really worthy of commendation? I'm honestly not sure; I have a powerful urge to do harm, but I've never acted on it. Do I deserve commendation as well?

I expect human beings to behave in a way that respects the rights and bodies of other human beings. When they do so, I think that's good; but I'm not sure we should consider it extra-good when they are inclined to act in a way that defies this expectation. I'm all for acknowledging that the challenges we face are different, but I'm not sure about valuing one identical result more than another on account of the emotional and psychological challenges that lead up to it.

I'm not closed to the idea, but I'm curious: Why you think we should value a paedophile's decision to not have sex with children over a non-paedophile's decision?

User avatar
Whimsical Eloquence
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:29 am UTC
Location: Ireland

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Whimsical Eloquence » Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:37 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Is that really worthy of commendation? I'm honestly not sure; I have a powerful urge to do harm, but I've never acted on it. Do I deserve commendation as well?

I expect human beings to behave in a way that respects the rights and bodies of other human beings. When they do so, I think that's good; but I'm not sure we should consider it extra-good when they are inclined to act in a way that defies this expectation. I'm all for acknowledging that the challenges we face are different, but I'm not sure about valuing one identical result more than another on account of the emotional and psychological challenges that lead up to it.

I'm not closed to the idea, but I'm curious: Why you think we should value a paedophile's decision to not have sex with children over a non-paedophile's decision?


Becasue they've a strong inclination to? Do I not validate to a greater extent the alcoholic's decision not to drink then I do the non-alcoholic? If, for a paedophile, there only (or nearly only) erotic attraction comes from something they can never, ethically, have and yet they don't do it then I applaud them more than the non-paedophile who dosen't have that compulsion. I expect the same standards from everyone, but I commend those who achieve those standards despite greater adversity.

Of course, I commend everyone who is an ethical human being. I merely thought it effective and conducive to my point to be iconoclastic in commending this particular ethical practice by a group of people.
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
~ Soren Kierkegaard

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:47 pm UTC

Whimsical Eloquence wrote:Becasue they've a strong inclination to? Do I not validate to a greater extent the alcoholic's decision not to drink then I do the non-alcoholic?
Well, keep in mind--choosing to drink isn't the problem in of itself. Plenty of people drink without any sort of consequences. Alcoholics face a consequence to drinking that non-alcoholics don't face--addiction. Giving up alcohol is applauded partly because it's something non-alcoholics can continue to do without necessary consequence--the alcoholic acknowledges that they cannot. This is not the same situation paedophiles face.

I think I might be setting up what's ultimately just a semantic issue, though. If we re-describe a paedophile's urge as a sexual desire that, when pursued, has immediate and devastating consequences, we can then discuss it in the same mold that we describe an alcoholic's urge (a desire to drink that, when pursued, has immediate and devastating consequences). Suddenly it fits in the mold you're describing (I think).

User avatar
Whimsical Eloquence
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:29 am UTC
Location: Ireland

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Whimsical Eloquence » Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:58 pm UTC

Sort of, yes. Obviously a non-alcoholic can drink without incident and no one condemns them for it. My point is more, that, we recognise that there is some greater effort to someone not taking an action if they some compulsion to do so, over someone who lacks such a compulsion. If, for a moment, we were to entertain the assumption that the consumption of alcohol is, for whatever reason, unethical then I we would agree that you or I (assuming neither of us are alcoholics) resisting the temptation to drink is worthy of less commendation then an alcoholic who similarly resists the temptation. Though perhaps this confuses the alcholics motives, they may be acting as much for their own sake as for the fact that it's unethical.

Take then instead a situation in which homosexual acts were unethical. Obviously we commend less straight people who avoid said acts than homosexuals who similarly avoid said acts (Bis needlessly complicate the example). It's simply that we recognise, that, given x unethical act, while no one should commit x act, we commend to a lesser degree those, y, who resist the temptation to commit x act and who lack a significant compulsion to do so over those, z, who do have said compulsion.
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
~ Soren Kierkegaard

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby BlackSails » Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:08 pm UTC

Goplat wrote:
Hemmers wrote:For some reason the Police thought it was a good idea to arrest people who'd bought these books, but have as yet taken absolutely no action against the publishers or retailers. Utterly bizarre
Not really. The publishers and retailers can probably afford decent legal representation. If your goal is to ruin people's lives with pointless prosecutions, going after individuals is a better bet.


You will never eliminate things (drugs, child pornography, whatever) by going after the supply. As long as there is demand for something, people will supply it.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3071
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby PAstrychef » Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:59 pm UTC

Because we see sexual attraction and urges as somehow stronger and more basic to a person than most other attractions and urges. Also we see sexual molestation of children as particularly heinous, just about the worst kind of assault that can be done to a child.
Children are now seen as primally innocent beings who are corrupted as they grow, being perfect when newborn and somehow ruined as they they become adults. Sex is seen in so many confused and contradictory ways that the only way to protect kids is to keep them from it.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

celer
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:57 pm UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby celer » Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:05 pm UTC

1 Non consensual sex is wrong. That is the basic starting point against pedophilia.
2 I was vidchatting with my GF, both of us topless (Long story). Before we signed off, I reminded her not to keep any pictures of herself like this anywhere and I made sure to delete any recordings on my computer. The fact that we could choose to have sex legally, but we can't have pictures, is an absurd over reach of the law.
3 It is insane that as a guy, I will be automatically under suspicion. I enjoy working with kids, and babysit at times. (I am 16, and it is nice money) I don't like that I keep a sound recorder in my pocket and on every time I go over to a house, and then save all of those recordings on my computer with online backups. But in this day of paranoia, with the assumption that any male with a child is a terrible person, this is the best thing I can do to avoid anything crazy happening.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby omgryebread » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:01 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:You will never eliminate things (drugs, child pornography, whatever) by going after the supply. As long as there is demand for something, people will supply it.
Going after demand has been totally fruitless as well. It makes for great TV, though.

PAstrychef wrote:Because we see sexual attraction and urges as somehow stronger and more basic to a person than most other attractions and urges. Also we see sexual molestation of children as particularly heinous, just about the worst kind of assault that can be done to a child.
Children are now seen as primally innocent beings who are corrupted as they grow, being perfect when newborn and somehow ruined as they they become adults. Sex is seen in so many confused and contradictory ways that the only way to protect kids is to keep them from it.
This is kind of conflating two separate issues.

Worrying about kids learning about sex and interacting with sexual media is quite different from worrying about kids getting used for sex by adults. One is silly and harmful, the other is a very valid concern.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Hemmers
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:50 pm UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Hemmers » Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:51 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:
Goplat wrote:
Hemmers wrote:For some reason the Police thought it was a good idea to arrest people who'd bought these books, but have as yet taken absolutely no action against the publishers or retailers. Utterly bizarre
Not really. The publishers and retailers can probably afford decent legal representation. If your goal is to ruin people's lives with pointless prosecutions, going after individuals is a better bet.


You will never eliminate things (drugs, child pornography, whatever) by going after the supply. As long as there is demand for something, people will supply it.


True, but something being sold in a national book chain is probably not going to be illegal - they have fairly good lawyers to check these sorts of things.
Secondly, if it is illegal, it's retarded to try and test it's illegality in court by prosecuting a purchaser, when copies of the offending material continue to be on sale less than 200yds from the courthouse :?
In that case it was dubious as to whether the books were even illegal. Given the fact they were being sold by Waterstones, then it is fair for buyers to assume it is legal - these were books of poetry and art featuring some risque illustrations, not out-and-out kiddie porn.
If they cross the line (which apparently they don't as the appeals court has overturned the conviction), then the proper way to go about dealing with them would be to prosecute the supplier, and (having established that they cross the legal line) issue a recall, and tell people they can bring the books back in for a refund with immunity for a period, after which anyone in possession of them will be subject to normal criminal proceedings.
It's a totally different scenario to people deliberately and surreptitiously seeking out illegal material whether on the internet or otherwise.

Whimsical Eloquence wrote:
Hemmers wrote:i.e. to be pedophilia, one partner has to be 18+, and the other has to be under 16 (and the elder partner has to know they are under 16). There is a defence if the younger partner has gone to lengths to conceal their true age (there is recent case history because the 14 year old girl had gone to great lengths on Facebook to fake the school she was at, conceal her true age, used make up to look older, etc, etc. The court concluded that she knew what she was doing and he reasonably believed she was legal).

Sections 5-8 of the same act deal with sex with children under 13, which is an absolute offence and there is no "reasonable belief" clause.


No. This is precisely the problem. To be a paedophile one has to have an erotic fixation for pre-pubescent minors. That's it. The Law doesn't decide whether you're a paedophile or not, or at least it shouldn't. It's as if we say a female who raped another female is a "convicted Lesbian". The practice of saying "a convicted paedophile is one I find quite prevalent, even in broadsheets, and idiotic. It only serves to confuse the issue more. Furthermore, having paedophiles specifically aren't interested in post-pubescent even if they're under the age of consent (that's Ephebophilia). Finally, many of those who commit child molestation (both pre- and post- pubescent) may not have any particular erotic fixation but instead a plethora of other psychological issues or are just plain malicious.

Well raised - that's the dictionary (and correct) definition true, so my post is inaccurate. However, the context that the OP posted in was the more general and widespread usage which is sex with anyone under the age of consent, and the more general paranoia over the issue, rather than specifically pre-pubescent children.
Since the media confuses the issue, and we are discussing the general paranoia over this issue, it's kind of appropriate to use the term in it's wider (if less strictly accurate) context. Good point well made though.

An interesting case on this locally. A priest was convicted of possessing child porn. This was the subject of discussion in the pub as my brother was at school with the guy's son. One person referred to him as a "paedophile". The actual or suspected age of the children in the images is not a matter of public knowledge (the Police merely rank them "Level 1/2/3/4/5" depending on their "severity"). In someways he may have been accurate if the images showed pre-pubescent children. However, he meant it in the context of actual being a child molester. When I pointed out his error, he seemed slightly confused and didn't seem to understand the difference between sex with a minor and possession of child porn. Calling the guy a paedophile would be slanderous or libellous because most people would understand it to mean that he was guilty of having sex with a minor (even though it's dictionary definition doesn't imply any sort of action whatsoever, merely a fixation or state of mind).

The whole lot gets lumped together by many people as "paedophilia", regardless of age or the actual offence committed - a distortion of our language which we have the hysterical mass media to thank for.
Last edited by Hemmers on Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:54 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby HungryHobo » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:32 am UTC

celer wrote:2 I was vidchatting with my GF, both of us topless (Long story). Before we signed off, I reminded her not to keep any pictures of herself like this anywhere and I made sure to delete any recordings on my computer. The fact that we could choose to have sex legally, but we can't have pictures, is an absurd over reach of the law.


I remember talking to some people about the absurdity of the situation when that thing with the teenage girl hit the news.
and the scary thing is that quite a lot of people actually think it's perfectly ok.

the response I got was "But what if a pedophile got hold of the picture!..."[ominous silence]

this person actually thought that life on the sex offenders register for self-porn was less bad than the possibility that a paedophile might look at a picture of you.
I think it comes from the assertions that people make when it comes to child porn laws that "every time someone looks at the picture it's like the child is being raped again".
People believe it, take it to heart and so it's only logical then that if you as a minor take a photo of yourself and it somehow ends up in the hands of a paedophile that that's worse than almost anything else imaginable so any punishment is justified to "save" you from that fate.
Last edited by HungryHobo on Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Thesh » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:41 am UTC

I think that part of the problem is that people go on the internet and read stuff like this:

http://www.yellodyno.com/Statistics/sta ... ester.html

Pedophiles have a strong, almost irresistible, desire to have sex with children. The average pedophile molests 260 victims during their lifetime. Over 90% of convicted pedophiles are arrested again for the same offense after their release from prison.


The first and last sentences are complete bullshit, but that bolded part is just so out there it is ridiculous.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3071
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby PAstrychef » Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:27 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I think that part of the problem is that people go on the internet and read stuff like this:

http://www.yellodyno.com/Statistics/sta ... ester.html

Pedophiles have a strong, almost irresistible, desire to have sex with children. The average pedophile molests 260 victims during their lifetime. Over 90% of convicted pedophiles are arrested again for the same offense after their release from prison.


The first and last sentences are complete bullshit, but that bolded part is just so out there it is ridiculous.

Do you have other data to refute the parts you claim are bullshit? Recidivism rates among child molesters are just about the highest tracked by various agencies. If part of your problem is not just being sexually attracted to children, but convincing yourself that the child wants it as well, it's that much harder to refrain. I will leave aside the whole topic of children's sexual agency, and when they should be allowed to exercise it, as being off topic for this thread.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

pizzazz
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby pizzazz » Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:04 pm UTC

PAstrychef wrote:
Thesh wrote:I think that part of the problem is that people go on the internet and read stuff like this:

http://www.yellodyno.com/Statistics/sta ... ester.html

Pedophiles have a strong, almost irresistible, desire to have sex with children. The average pedophile molests 260 victims during their lifetime. Over 90% of convicted pedophiles are arrested again for the same offense after their release from prison.


The first and last sentences are complete bullshit, but that bolded part is just so out there it is ridiculous.

Do you have other data to refute the parts you claim are bullshit? Recidivism rates among child molesters are just about the highest tracked by various agencies. If part of your problem is not just being sexually attracted to children, but convincing yourself that the child wants it as well, it's that much harder to refrain. I will leave aside the whole topic of children's sexual agency, and when they should be allowed to exercise it, as being off topic for this thread.


It's impossible to claim that "90% percent of pedophiles" do anything because so few people will admit to that. Plus 260 is absurd anyway, just think about how many children that would be.
The website they cite for that particular fact doesn't have any obvious place where that would be, but later on yellodyno says, "Dr. Gene Abel estimates that between 1% and 5% of our population molest children." But if each molests 260 people, that's...260% of the population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse says that about 15% of children are molested... for all these facts to be consistent, the average child molestation victim would have to have been molested by more than 17 people.
It's already been discussed that most victims are acquainted to their attacker; does the average adult even have access to 260 minor acquaintances?

The website also provides some differing numbers, such as "80-95%" "96%" and "97%" of child molesters being male. Oh, and guess what? they then say later on... "The typical offender is male, begins molesting by age 15, engages in a variety of deviant behavior, and molests an average of 117 youngsters, most of whom do not report the offense." It's still ridiculous, AND it contradicts what they said earlier by more than a factor of 2. It seems to me that no one is actually reading these numbers, they're just being put up as they're found.

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Enuja » Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:27 pm UTC

PAstrychef, beyond the numerical problem in that quote, the writer is using the word "pedophile" to mean "child molester" instead of person sexually attracted to children. The writer is confounding a thought process with a behavior. The wikitionary entry on pedophile is instructive: the definition is "A person who is sexually attracted to children" but one of the uses of the word defines a pedophile as a child molester instead of as a person sexually attracted to children.

The research on "pedophiles" is not actually research on pedophiles. Instead, it's research on people convicted of sexually molesting children, because the rest of the pedophiles know that it would ruin their lives to try to get help from a psychologist. It's like when the only homosexuals studied by psychologists were those in prisons or mental institutions. Extrapolating from the child molesting subset of pedophiles to the all pedophiles is an invalid use of statistics and wildly misleading.

I'm not convinced that the sexual identity model is the best idea for pedophiles. In history, sexual interests (heterosexuality, homosexuality, ect.) were not always considered to be related to identity. Instead, people did specific sexual behaviors, and some people might be more likely to do certain acts than others, but everyone was a sinner, whether lust or homosexuality or having sex with children was the sin, and it was a just a sin. And we are all sinners, so sinning didn't change your identity, just your moral status, which could redeemed. I like the identity politics around being queer or bisexual or a lesbian or a gay man, but I'm not a big fan identity politics around pedophilia. It doesn't seem designed to help people attracted to children to keep from doing anything against the consent of children or which damages children. If you are "a pedophile", you are doomed to never have a healthy expression of your sexual identity. And that just sucks. But if you're simply sometimes sexually attracted to children, you can also be attracted to adults: your entire sexual identity is no longer doomed.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Thesh » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:41 pm UTC

PAstrychef wrote:Do you have other data to refute the parts you claim are bullshit? Recidivism rates among child molesters are just about the highest tracked by various agencies.


Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their review of studies that the recidivism rate for specific types of offenders varied:

* Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
* Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
* Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
* Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
* Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

High, yes, but not close to the 90% reported. There are a ton of studies with different numbers, but none of them come close to 90%.

Another article with different numbers:
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/ab ... divism.htm

The average of 260 victims number just doesn't add up at all, as previously mentioned.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Whimsical Eloquence
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:29 am UTC
Location: Ireland

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Whimsical Eloquence » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:02 pm UTC

Enuja wrote: If you are "a pedophile", you are doomed to never have a healthy expression of your sexual identity. And that just sucks. But if you're simply sometimes sexually attracted to children, you can also be attracted to adults: your entire sexual identity is no longer doomed.


Indeed and while I would certainly agree that Paedophile identity politics is to be discouraged, I do think conciousness raising is needed in this area. The present conflation of paedophilia with ephebeophilia, or paedophilia with child molestation, or total paedophilia with paedophilic tendencies does not serve to inform or otherwise further equip the understanding and resolution of these issues. I do think some recognition of that difficulty would be beneficial as I think any sub-group in society that suffers under the Law (even justly) is worthy of some recognition in discourse relating to the issue.

Take for instance the rather spurious 98% (which seemed to come without any supported citation for recidivism rates) which we'll suppose as true. That 98% should apply to "of those child molesters who we've studied" or (assuming it has done a general sample ) "of all child molesters". Only a percentage of those molesters maybe paedophiles. Furthermore, there may be many thousands of paedophiles who have never molested a child in their life and as such would not figure in these statistics.

As for the actual "fear" of paedophiles, some of that fear is due to seeing child molesters as "paedophiles" as someone who is differentiated from you or I by this deviancy one which they'll surely act one, dehumanising them as some sort of "bogeyman" and allowing them to be more easily both treated as such and ignored for what they are. Rather than seeing them as someone who commits a horrific act worthy of condemnation but someone who is fundamentally like you or I. We don't have the same kind of obsession (least not the Daily Mail anyway) about murderers or rapists partially because we conceive of them as people who have committed an act differentiated from us by that act rather than by some pre-existing urge. We can imagine why we might ourselves be motivated to commit murder or rape while still condemning them and yet not in the same way can we do so for child molestation because we associate ate it solely with these paedophile monsters.

It is for these reasons, and just general pedantry, that I'd rather think it beneficial for the term to be removed from public discourse.
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
~ Soren Kierkegaard

Hemmers
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:50 pm UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Hemmers » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:31 pm UTC

pizzazz wrote:It's impossible to claim that "90% percent of pedophiles" do anything because so few people will admit to that. Plus 260 is absurd anyway, just think about how many children that would be.
The website they cite for that particular fact doesn't have any obvious place where that would be, but later on yellodyno says, "Dr. Gene Abel estimates that between 1% and 5% of our population molest children." But if each molests 260 people, that's...260% of the population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse says that about 15% of children are molested... for all these facts to be consistent, the average child molestation victim would have to have been molested by more than 17 people.
It's already been discussed that most victims are acquainted to their attacker; does the average adult even have access to 260 minor acquaintances?


Those numbers do seem a lot. I mean, 1% of the US population is a smidge over 3million. I'm struggling to believe there are 3 million child molesters in the US. That's like, one per street or more. Even just taking it as 1% of the adult population gives you 2.4million, which with 260 victims each is 634million victims - or twice the population of the US :roll: . Admittedly a lot of molested children will be molested by more than one person - prostitution and organised crime rings and the like will mean although a molester might molest 260 different individuals, those will not be unique individuals to that molester, but will be molested by other adults. By their estimates, to get down to a vaguely reasonable figure (say 5-10million abused children - or 8-16% of all children in the US), each child would have to be molested by 120-250 adults, which even within an organised prostitution ring seems rather high. Their numbers are just way high, unless everyone and their nieghbour is a molester.

I have no inclination (or time - mainly time) to go hunting for sources to refute such a blatantly biased website, but given that the site contradicts itself in places, coupled with their careless bandying around of statistics, I'd call the whole thing into question as a reliable source, even without a counter source to back up that assertion. I'm not saying their sources are wrong, just that the web editors probably didn't actually bother reading them before spouting a load of statistics that they claim those sources support :roll:

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Thesh » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:34 pm UTC

Hemmers wrote:Those numbers do seem a lot. I mean, 1% of the US population is a smidge over 3million. I'm struggling to believe there are 3 million child molesters in the US.


Child molestation is not the same as pedophilia. It is very likely that most pedophiles don't molest children (no hard data on this, of course).

Considering most victims know their offenders, with 36% being relatives, says to me that most child molesters probably have 1-2 victims, maybe as high as 5. I think you would have a hard time finding a single person accused of molesting over 50 children, let alone the hundreds that would be necessary to say that the average child molester has over 260 victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse
Last edited by Thesh on Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:39 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Роберт » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:38 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Hemmers wrote:Those numbers do seem a lot. I mean, 1% of the US population is a smidge over 3million. I'm struggling to believe there are 3 million child molesters in the US.


Child molestation is not the same as pedophilia. It is very likely that most pedophiles don't molest children (no hard data on this, of course).

I'm not sure what your point is. Did you read his quote?
Dr. Gene Abel estimates that between 1% and 5% of our population molest children.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Thesh » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:40 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Hemmers wrote:Those numbers do seem a lot. I mean, 1% of the US population is a smidge over 3million. I'm struggling to believe there are 3 million child molesters in the US.


Child molestation is not the same as pedophilia. It is very likely that most pedophiles don't molest children (no hard data on this, of course).

I'm not sure what your point is. Did you read his quote?
Dr. Gene Abel estimates that between 1% and 5% of our population molest children.


Sorry, my mistake. I was just reading wikipedia's numbers about an estimated 1-5% of the population is pedophiles and my mind immediately went there.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Hemmers
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:50 pm UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Hemmers » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:49 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Hemmers wrote:Those numbers do seem a lot. I mean, 1% of the US population is a smidge over 3million. I'm struggling to believe there are 3 million child molesters in the US.


Child molestation is not the same as pedophilia. It is very likely that most pedophiles don't molest children (no hard data on this, of course).

What Po6EPT said.

That's part of the problem though - that site has more than a whiff of the scaremongering about it, and I wouldn't trust them to use either term accurately.

Actually, with the back of the fag-packet maths I did there, a 1-1 correlation between molesters and abused children probably isn't far off, assuming that most children are molested by more than one person, and many molesters will have more than one victim (on average). They're throwing the whole thing out of kilter with the 260 victims per perpetrator stat though, which is clearly rollocks. If it's not "in family" abuse, then it's organised gangs, who have to limit their numbers to maintain the necessary secrecy surrounding their activities. The idea any individual ring is going to have hundreds of members (and victims) and maintain secrecy for any length of time is highly improbable.

MrConor
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:19 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby MrConor » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:13 am UTC

I am unable to read the word 'pedophile' as any other meaning but foot-fetishist. I know it's the spelling of paedophile most commonly used in the US, but I still can't take it seriously.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Diadem » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:37 am UTC

MrConor wrote:I am unable to read the word 'pedophile' as any other meaning but foot-fetishist. I know it's the spelling of paedophile most commonly used in the US, but I still can't take it seriously.

Look, it's not our fault you can't tell the difference between Greek and Latin.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3071
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby PAstrychef » Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:30 am UTC

If 36% of molesters are related to their victims, 64% are not-although a huge number of abusers are "mom's boyfriend." The large numbers come from long-term repeat offenders, like some of those mentioned in conjunction with the Catholic Church. Glad to see some more solid data showing up. And some of them are just incorrect.
The conflation of paedophile with molester has partly come about because US society see sexual urges as so strong and primal that they can not be denied, and seeing no other possible reason for an adult to sexually abuse a child. That incest in particular seems to involve accessibility as much as attraction would seem to show the falsity of such a blanket explanation.
How much of our cultural ideas stem from overexposure to LifeTime movies about Grandpa abusing first his kids and then his grandkids and such like? From case after case after case of priests abusing youth in their care? From stories of horrible abductions/assaults/killings by strangers? Once the idea of " he just lools normal" got some traction folks started with the worst case assumption, because that way, you could feel that you were doing everything possible to protect the innocent and vulnerable.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby omgryebread » Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:49 am UTC

I haven't seen much criticism or praise of Gene Abel's work. From a very quick glance, it seems solid enough. I think it's worth noting that he seems to be selling several "tests" that screen for pedophilia. Seems a pretty harsh conflict of interest.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Thesh » Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:51 am UTC

PAstrychef wrote:If 36% of molesters are related to their victims, 64% are not-although a huge number of abusers are "mom's boyfriend."


I neglected to post the largest population, which is "acquaintances" at 46%. These statistics say juvenile, for actual prepubescent children, I would expect family/acquaintances to be higher. 13-17 tend to meet more people who aren't known to the family, whereas "12 and under" tend to know family, classmates, parents, neighbors, and possibly priests/reverends/rabbis/Imams/etc. Either way, however, the figure of 260 average victims doesn't make sense.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
thorgold
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:36 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby thorgold » Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:57 am UTC

Parents of the US, in the last 50 years, have been supersensitized to the "dangers of the world" - child abductors, molesters, murderers, etc. When I say supersensitized, I mean that adults are saturated by the belief that events such as kidnappings, off-the-street molesters, and child killers are a common occurence. Does that stuff happen? Yes. However, fairly rare cases of severe crimes against children are hyped to untold levels by the media because it's rare. Blood sells, and so do little girls getting raped (that says loads for human nature). Because the media reports on such cases with ravenous zeal, parents are often led to believe that dangers lurk around every corner.

It's a natural response - you hear 20 stories about kids being snatched off the sidewalks and horrifically abused, you should feel at unease if you have a child. The problem is that too many parents overreact to a threat that is already overamplified by media coverage. It's like putting on a full motorcycle helmet to protect against a baby throwing pebbles, just because a pebble *can* put out an eye.

Summary: The threat (pedophiles) exists, yes. But overamplification by a "blood sells" media and overreaction by protective parents leads to all kinds of trouble.
You can refuse to think, but you can't refuse the consequences of not thinking.

MrConor
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:19 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby MrConor » Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:41 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
MrConor wrote:I am unable to read the word 'pedophile' as any other meaning but foot-fetishist. I know it's the spelling of paedophile most commonly used in the US, but I still can't take it seriously.

Look, it's not our fault you can't tell the difference between Greek and Latin.


You got me there, my experience with classical languages is practically nil. I don't understand why the word for child (paîs) becomes "ped-" when combined with philia. I presume there's some obscure grammatical reason, but really what would have been wrong with using the term paisophilia? It's just as easy to pronounce and spell!

EDIT: That being said, wikipedia says that the word pederasty derives from Greek paiderastia (παῖς (pais) "child, boy" and ἐραστής (erastēs) "lover"), so I'll assume that the ped- prefix is simply a corruption of the original paid.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:34 pm UTC

MrConor wrote:
Diadem wrote:
MrConor wrote:I am unable to read the word 'pedophile' as any other meaning but foot-fetishist. I know it's the spelling of paedophile most commonly used in the US, but I still can't take it seriously.

Look, it's not our fault you can't tell the difference between Greek and Latin.


You got me there, my experience with classical languages is practically nil. I don't understand why the word for child (paîs) becomes "ped-" when combined with philia. I presume there's some obscure grammatical reason, but really what would have been wrong with using the term paisophilia? It's just as easy to pronounce and spell!

EDIT: That being said, wikipedia says that the word pederasty derives from Greek paiderastia (παῖς (pais) "child, boy" and ἐραστής (erastēs) "lover"), so I'll assume that the ped- prefix is simply a corruption of the original paid.


Spoiler:
/pais/ is the nominative form, the real morpheme is */paid/, so compounds use /paid-/, not */pais-/. <παιδ-> became <paed->, because in Latin characters <ae> is how the diphthong [aj] was traditionally spelled. I'm having trouble recalling, but I think /ae/ became /e/ due to monophthongization in both Latin (during the Classical period most likely), Greek (sometime in the Byzantine/Medieval period), and Greco-Latin <ae> to /ɛ/ in English (after the Great Vowel Shift, IIRC). British English has retained the <ae> spelling to some extent, while American English consistently spells it <e>.

The confusion comes from the Latin morpheme /ped-/, "foot". But generally Latin and Greek morphemes can't be combined in English unless the morpheme is really productive, for example Greek <auto-> and Latin <mobile>. If we were to make a Latin derived word meaning "someone who is sexually attracted to children" it would be something like <pedamorist>. The Ancient Greek word for "foot" is /pous/, /pod-/ and can be seen in English words like <podiatrist>.
Last edited by Iulus Cofield on Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:58 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Diadem » Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:00 pm UTC

MrConor wrote:
Diadem wrote:
MrConor wrote:I am unable to read the word 'pedophile' as any other meaning but foot-fetishist. I know it's the spelling of paedophile most commonly used in the US, but I still can't take it seriously.

Look, it's not our fault you can't tell the difference between Greek and Latin.


You got me there, my experience with classical languages is practically nil. I don't understand why the word for child (paîs) becomes "ped-" when combined with philia. I presume there's some obscure grammatical reason, but really what would have been wrong with using the term paisophilia? It's just as easy to pronounce and spell!

EDIT: That being said, wikipedia says that the word pederasty derives from Greek paiderastia (παῖς (pais) "child, boy" and ἐραστής (erastēs) "lover"), so I'll assume that the ped- prefix is simply a corruption of the original paid.

My point was that the suffix 'philia' comes from Greek, while the prefix 'pedo' for foot, comes from Latin. Mixing Latin and Greek roots is grammatically incorrect. A foot fetishist would be a pedoamorist or a podiphile. So if we are talking about the word 'pedophile' then since the suffix comes from Greek, so does the prefix, and the only logical interpretation becomes child-lover.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Iulus Cofield » Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:59 am UTC

If only someone had already explained that, only they had put it in a spoiler tag to avoid dragging us off topic.

Afrael
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:23 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Afrael » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:19 am UTC

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:I'll post this here jest because it is the thread I was on that I remembered my idea and was relevant.

I think there should be some type of objective-at-it-gets aptitude test that grants things like the right to consent and the ability to vote, etc… That way we don't have to calcify certain arbitrary numbers into law. The only problem is that those damn Southerners (of the US) used this excuse to further racial inequality, so it could never be implemented in the states due to the bad legacy


Spoiler:
Part 3 of the A Lord from Planet Earth trilogy has that kind of thing (as you can read in the article, part three takes place on Earth in 2130). As far as I can remember, applicants have to be able to stand a certain level of psychogical pressure, among several other things. (How this level of psychological pressure is defined is never fully explained. It is said applicants have to be able to resist "level 3", and one time, manipulating your conversational partner altering your body speech is referred to as "level 1"). Once the applicant has passed the test, they receive a necklace which serves as an identifier that they are fully mature and responsible for their own life, which basically means they are allowed to do drugs, have sex with any consenting mature person, be out in the wilderness alone etcpp. The necklace has an "emergency panic button", which they may trigger to order a saving troop to their current position, thereby breaking the necklace and forfeiting their maturity. (I think they have to take the test again, then).

Extreme cases of applicants passing the test for the first time include a 80 year old and on the other end of the spectrum, a Chinese 5 (or 8?) year old boy. Apparently, he had to go bring the state to court to get his test results accepted.

Uhm, nothing to contribute to the actual topic at the moment.

User avatar
drkslvr
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:59 pm UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby drkslvr » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:27 am UTC

Diadem wrote:I really can not wrap my head around this. I mean, I know it happens. I've read the news reports. But why does it happen? There's so many people involved in cases like this. Police, prosecuters, lawmakers, judges. Do none of these stop for a second and wonder about what they are doing? I understand religious zeal, I understand being a coldhearted bastard, or wanting to appear tough on crime. But cases like these are so obviously moronic, how can so many people fail to see that?

It's a false-sense-of-security-system. The point isn't to make people safe. It's to make people feel safe. And that's important to all of those judges and lawmakers because making people feel safe gets politicians elected. It doesn't matter if people are actually safer. You just have to make them think they are.

Spoiler:
In early 2007 Virginia Tech had electronic locks to keep non-residents out of the dorms, a campus alert system, and a ban on weapons on campus. Yet all of that did nothing to stop Seung-Hui Cho from killing over thirty students and wounding more than 100 others. In fact, he may have been stopped sooner if the false-sense-of-security-system wasn't in place.

Here is the interesting part, though. After Virginia Tech, people were scared. When officials saw that people were scared, the implemented more false-sense-of-security-systems. My own university, after the attacks, added electronic passkey locks to all the dorms, put up dozens of signs that weapons were prohibited, and cobbled together a campus alert system. The system they implemented was a virtual clone of the system VT had that did absolutely nothing to prevent the tragedy at VT. Really, it may have prolonged the rampage.

Think that's the only FSoSS out there? Think again. They're all around us. All of the security checkpoints at airports? Didn't stop the Christmas Day bomber. Backscatter devices? Can't even detect a handgun if it's positioned correctly. War in Iraq? Do I really have to explain that that one didn't actually make us any safer?

The point of our insanely aggressive prosecution strategies isn't to make people safe. It's to make people feel safe. The illusion is all that matters.
Help a paralyzed kitten get surgery! Fundly.com/Help-Link-Walk-Again
Image
Like Link's page for photos and updates on his status: Facebook.com/HelpLinkWalkAgain

Hemmers
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:50 pm UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Hemmers » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:42 pm UTC

drkslvr wrote:Here is the interesting part, though. After Virginia Tech, people were scared. When officials saw that people were scared, the implemented more false-sense-of-security-systems. My own university, after the attacks, added electronic passkey locks to all the dorms, put up dozens of signs that weapons were prohibited, and cobbled together a campus alert system. The system they implemented was a virtual clone of the system VT had that did absolutely nothing to prevent the tragedy at VT. Really, it may have prolonged the rampage.

Think that's the only FSoSS out there? Think again. They're all around us. All of the security checkpoints at airports? Didn't stop the Christmas Day bomber. Backscatter devices? Can't even detect a handgun if it's positioned correctly. War in Iraq? Do I really have to explain that that one didn't actually make us any safer?

The point of our insanely aggressive prosecution strategies isn't to make people safe. It's to make people feel safe. The illusion is all that matters.


Yeah, we only have to see the bombing in Russia - you can put all the security you like in an airport. But that doesn't stop someone walking into the arrivals hall or upto the queue of people waiting to go through security and detonating their bomb then.
Similarly, the UK is so obsessed with CRB checks for people working with kids, despite the fact CRB checks only protect you against people who have already been caught. It does absolutely nothing to identify miscreant behaviour or identify (potential) abuse as (or before) it's happening.
Similarly obsession over firearms. I mean, firearms licensing is a good thing in principle. Basic checks to prevent easy access to firearms by criminals and mentally unstable individuals are a good thing. But people get so obsessed with the idea that it's private firearm owners who supply the black market, or that it's private owners who will go on the rampage, they forget to check on the watchmen in a position of responsibility (like Police Chiefs) who are selling stuff into the black market anyway, or where people can just jump in a tractor and kill 11 people without any firearms whatsoever.
Guns are quite a good example. China has an outright ban on private ownership, but people still commit kindergarten massacres with knives on frighteningly regular basis, or go nuts with construction vehicles.
Likewise we have massive security in airports, and it just moves the bomb attempts to other locations.

In the UK you can't buy an airsoft gun in black unless you're a member of a site (and registered in the national airsoft database). Otherwise it has to have bright orange/red components to show it's not a real gun. This does nothing to stop people buying a coloured one and spray painting it gun black, or indeed do anything address actual gun crime, or indeed knife crime, which is a far more prolific problem.

But it's all bundled up in the "Violent Crime Reduction Act", so the government can say they're tough on crime.

It sounds good. :roll:

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Thesh » Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:31 am UTC

drkslvr wrote:The point of our insanely aggressive prosecution strategies isn't to make people safe. It's to make people feel safe. The illusion is all that matters.


You know, maybe we should ban reporting of any incident in which more than 2 people are killed? Wouldn't that be significantly more effective? Giving people a false sense of security only works until the next incident; then they stop having the desired effect and people want to add more layers of false security. If people don't know about the incidents, however, then they will always feel safe.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:47 am UTC

Freedom of the press is constitutionally guaranteed, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find enough people willing to forego that to create a cheaper illusion of security.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Pedophilephobia

Postby Thesh » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:32 am UTC

It's simple:

Wait for a major incident, shooting or bombing or something like that, get officials to lie and say that because of the media, the police investigation was hindered and the people who did it got away. The next day, maybe the same day, when people are in a state of panic, write up and pass the bill.

People will be emotional, and when people are emotional, they are not rational, and not enough people will care about their rights until it is too late. That's what happened with the patriot act.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests