by purplesofa 149 Replies latest members adult
Should we really stop at "You know better than to play 'doctor' with that little boy/girl!" DO they, really? And if they do, can they NOT play doctor?
Children of the same age exploring their bodies is not considered pedophilia - if you chose to educate yourself about the topic BEFORE commenting on it, you would be aware of that.
What about a 14 y/o pedophile? Do you have any sympathy for a 14 y/o pedophile? Or 15?
SixofNine,
Most of us consider pedophiles to be adults, however, you bring up an interesting point - if a 14 yr old is a pedophile, then perhaps there is time to correct the behavior while they are still adolescents, if you leave it to adulthood they're almost certainly too far gone.
Still, why should I have any sympathy for pedophiles of any age? Should I have sympathy for war criminals because some might have been child soldiers? These people who hack of arms and legs and leave mutilated people?
At what point do we stop analyzing and come to the logical conclusion that these individuals do not deserve the freedom to walk our streets and work in our schools?
Still, why should I have any sympathy for pedophiles of any age?
Because with an almost i nfinitesimal alteration to your own genetic code you could be one? "There but for the grace of god..."
Good morning, all, and peace to you! Lots to respond to, I see, so...
I do think that I recall reading that many pedophiles (It MAY have just been actual molesters, but i do not know for sure) as well as rapists have a very hard if not impossible time understanding how much they hurt their victims.
Many, yes, dear CE (peace to you!), but many is not all, right? So, what of those who DO understand? I mean, are we to assume that NONE of those who do "wrong"... in whatever manner... feel remorse/regret... may not have committed the wrong if they had received some help, if someone had listened to their cry for it, much earlier on?
They lack that ability, the compassion and guilt.
And these are most likely the ones who actually molest. Which is not who I am speaking of.
I wonder how long it will be before we reach this state of affairs with pedophilia and wiether the original article is a tentative step along this awfull road for there are indeed people in power that suffer this perversion and would surely like it to become more prevalent.
Okaaaaayyy, dear Nambo (peace to you, as well!)??? I find it interesting that some apparently think that all pedophiles are "lowlifes" in our society... or even adult. Trust me, there are WAY more pedophiles out there that any of us can even imagine. Pedophilia is an accepted practice in MANY cultures, along with incest. It's only hidden in some culture(s). Those cultures may think they're going to eradicate it, but I would wager that it will either go the way of homosexuality (i.e., come out into the open and eventually be accepted, depending on who's in power), or slavery (underground but even more pervasive that previously). Rather than putting our heads [back] in the sand, though ("Ewwwwww, yet another perversion WE have to deal with! Why not just kill 'em all... or send them to some island??")... perhaps "we" should consider early intervention... and prevention where possible.
What about pedophiles who are "attracted" to very young children, even babies? Is that really an "attraction"? Or just perverse evil?
Do we KNOW, dear Truth (peace to you, too!)? I mean, do we know which one's tendency is the result of which? How? And regardless of which, if we can do something that might prevent even ONE molestation... shouldn't we? Or should we just write all these folks off... and wait until they act on their desires (to the detriment of some child!)... and THEN act (which is usually only some kind of temporary criminal penalty, so what of them when they've served their "sentence"?)
I understand the wanting to figure out the "hardwiring" but you must accept that some people exercise their free will choice to do things of this detestable nature.
And again, neither the author nor I was speaking as to those who DO molest... but help for those who fight to urge to KEEP fighting.
Children of the same age exploring their bodies is not considered pedophilia - if you chose to educate yourself about the topic BEFORE commenting on it, you would be aware of that.
And you assume those are the children I was speaking of, dear Tal (peace to you!). Why? (And why do you keep "insinuating" inaccurate understanding and motives into my comments? What is UP with you with that, lately??). But just so you know (and I shouldn't HAVE to state this publicly to you to get YOU to "see", but since your sensitivities seem to be on such "high alert" lately, I will)... MY "education" about the topic is based on MY own molestation, at ages 3-4, by a boy who was 10-11 at the time. Which boy grew up to "like" young girls (the younger, the better: 2-3 was his preference). No one listened to my 3-year-old "dribble" when I tried to tell the parents (who were often too involved in drinking and playing cards to pay any attention when I tried). Besides, we were just "playing doctor," right? But who knows, perhaps that little boy needed help with an already present tendency, which could have saved some other little girls? Oh, and he also molested his two younger sisters... for years.
I also base it on a family member who was subjected to abuse by an older sibling for 10 years... which abuse started when he was 5 and the sibling was 7. That same sibling went on to rape another sibling when he was a teenager and she a pre-teen. Indeed, many, many... many... child molestations are at the hands of other CHILDREN, and a lot of those "children" are teenagers. So, come on down off your high horse, dear, please.
What about a 14 y/o pedophile? Do you have any sympathy for a 14 y/o pedophile? Or 15?
Exactly, dear Six (peace to you, luv!): exactly when does it start? What, a man/woman wakes up one day, a full grown adult, and THEN goes, "Oh, hey, wait... I think I like kids, now!"? Or is it that now they have more power... and greater ability... to carry out their desires on weaker ones... because now they have their own homes, cars, etc., in which to DO it? No more need to hide it like they had to in Mommy/Daddy's house?
Most of us consider pedophiles to be adults, however, you bring up an interesting point - if a 14 yr old is a pedophile, then perhaps there is time to correct the behavior while they are still adolescents,
(Shaking head, no) - I really do believe it starts MUCH earlier than that, dear Truth. But, again, there's that whole "playing doctor" thing: how do you tell the difference between children "exploring" (eyeroll)... and one child actually molesting another? When the other one doesn't like it? WHat if they do? What if they don't know that they shouldn't like it? Because isn't that a claim of many who were molested - they didn't KNOW it was "bad" at the time? I certainly didn't (and I never suffered about it because when I DID realize it was bad, when I was about 7 and recalled it all happening, I also realized it wasn't MY fault - heck, I was only 3-4; how could it BE my fault?? He didn't hurt me, physically, but he certainly molested me, as that word describes what someone might do to another, which doesn't necessarily involve penile penetration...)
if you leave it to adulthood they're almost certainly too far gone.
YES!! Or will...
Still, why should I have any sympathy for pedophiles of any age?
Only you can answer that. I think it might help, though, to consider that a pedophile is NOT necessarily a molester. Just like an alcoholic is not necessarily a drinker... or a drug addict necessarily a user... or someone who harbors great anger necessarily going to be physically violent...
Should I have sympathy for war criminals because some might have been child soldiers?
If they are war criminals... then a crime has already been committed. The author... and I... are talking about BEFORE a crime... molestation... has been committed. If you saw a child killing an animal... would you say that child needs some kind of help... or would you wait until he grew up and killed man before you thought so? What if that child came to you and said, "I think I want to kill something/someone." Would you think that child needed help? Do you think society should provide it?
What, then, if a child... young person... adult... were able to go to someone and say, "I think I want to have sex with [a] child(ren)?" Would you wait until he/she became an adult and actually HAD sex with a child... before thinking they could benefit from some kind of help?
These people who hack of arms and legs and leave mutilated people?
Crime already committed...
At what point do we stop analyzing and come to the logical conclusion that these individuals do not deserve the freedom to walk our streets and work in our schools?
AFTER a crime has been committed, perhaps. What, though, if we (society) could intervene... and by doing so... prevent the crime... by offering help early on? Which we can only do by making it safe for such ones to SEEK help... which we can only do if we have some level of SYMPATHY for their "illness"? What of that? Because that's what the author is suggesting...
Because with an almost infinitesimal alteration to your own genetic code you could be one? "There but for the grace of god..."
Amen... and amen, dear Six! I marvel that SO many think they're better and in a place to judge... when the truth is that most of us simply dodged a bullet genetically... and perhaps even accidentally.
Anyway, dear ones... it would behoove [some of you] to actually read the article... as well as the comments... in FULL... and maybe even ask for clarification if you don't understand something... before jumping to the [very wrong] conclusions that you sometimes do. There's a wise saying about answering a thing "before fully hearing it." Not very intelligent... or wise.
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
Because with an almost infinitesimal alteration to your own genetic code you could be one? "There but for the grace of god..."
There is no proof of which I am aware the pedophilia is a genetic disorder.
One fact that indicates it may well be mostly environmental is that many pedophile victims later in life become pedophiles themselves.
I guess you could say we do feel sympathy for them - in about the same way we might feel it for Charlie Manson.
Do they DESERVE sympathy? I cannot judge this but cannot help feeling they do not.
Again, the article was about those pedophiles who have NOT acted upon their impulses, dear JW (peace to you!). It's asking about those. There are a plethora of men (and women) out there who get all "sweaty" when they're around young girls/boys... but don't DO anything about that. Depending on the age of the young girl/boy (say, 13-14?)... some would consider that a pedophilic tendency. And seeing as society once deemed marriage at 12... even 10 in some societies (and still at 14 in some U.S. states)... and had to deem sex with a 14-year-old as a crime, even if the 14-year-old consented... I'd say there's a whole lot of folks out there with "tendencies" that we want to admit.
Child molesters don't deserve much sympathy, if any at all. A pedophile, however, is not necessarily a child molester. That was the point of the article (which I'm sure you read, right? )
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA, who thinks levelling the playing field should be applied across the board, even with regard to folks who need help BEFORE they commit a crime they don't want to...
I don't post very often but this is a very interesting thread and has drawn me in to comment. Like everyone else I am disgusted by child molestation and feel that those who are willing to hurt others for their own sexual gratification deserve the strongest punishments possible in our civilised society.
And at the same time, I feel that those who are unfortunately trapped with this 'condition' but manage to find the self control to stop themselves acting on it, do need intense support and help. I can't quite bring myself to use the word sympathy, but just abandoning these people is more likely to cause them to buckle and commit a terrible crime than if they are shown understanding and given support.
However as others have mentioned, this topic is not quite so black and white as it at first seems. Nambo made very interesting points above and I wanted to expand on them. I admit my fairly traditional ethics and attitudes have been truly stretched and challenged on this emotive issue.
I too saw the TV programme a long time ago about the tiny self-governing paradise-style island where paedophilia was considered normal and it left me with a very uneasy and ambivalent feelings. The programme makers did try to remain unbiased but I don't think they succeeded.
I believe it was the Australian authorities who went to the island and tried to stamp out the practice of paedophilia, much to the anger of the inhabitants who felt that their culture and traditions and right to live as they chose were being attacked by interfering outsiders.
The issue had come to light because a young female islander who had gone abroad for education had blown the whistle once she realised the island customs were not considered normal in the rest of the world.
The islanders questioned why these foreign strangers thought they had a right to come in and force their own values and laws on their peaceful community. They claimed that the young teenage girls involved didn't suffer or object and in fact grew up happily accepting from a young age that they would be sexually 'educated' by the older males when they became old enough. It seemed to be viewed as a right of passage. The mothers did not seem to mind or make any objections to their daughters following in their footsteps. I was unsure whether we were getting the full story and I didn't like the agressive attitude of the self styled leader of the island, but that aside, it did challenge me to think and question my preconceptions. Ultimately I concluded that the practice was wrong as although the girls were not necessarily unhappy about it, as far as I could tell, they did not actually have a choice to say no if they wished to.
There are also other cultures eg in Africa where sex with young girls is considered normal and has been for generations and the girls grow up quite happily and undamaged as they do not consider they have been coerced. In our culture we use emotive words such as "victim" and "evil perpetrator" in connection with paedophilia, but in other cultures these are not necessarily applicable.
Obviously no-one knows exactly what the culture of our early prehistoric ancestors was, but assuming that 'paedophilia' existed in human brains then, it's quite reasonable to guess that especially once girls reached puberty, there would have been no laws or perceived reasons to get in the way of adult desires being put into practice. Presumably they soon worked out that incest was biologically not sensible, but without cultural restraints, what we call paedophilia might perhaps have been very "normal".
As AGuest pointed out, marriage at 14 is still legal in some places. My friend's grandparents were married when they were age 19 and 15 respectively. Romeo woud have been a pedophile by our standards as Juliet was only 14. It's also well documented that it was culturally acceptable for high status Ancient Romans to keep young boys for their pleasure and they often grew emotionally very close.
Then there is the fact to consider of how other mammals behave which is a long complex topic of it's own.
But I am not aware of any human or animal culture that finds it acceptable to behave sexually with small children or babies. This is a different matter entirely.
I myself remember being picked up by a family friend when I was very small and his hand went to an inapproprate place, (it was a one-off occurrence and did me no harm fortunately), but I think I have only remembered it because the prevailing culture had taught me, as young as age 2, that certain areas should be kept covered and private from everyone, although I didn't know why.
I find it hard to get my head round all this, but one uncomfortable and unpalatable possible conclusion could be that paedophilia with older children only becomes a problem and causes emotional damage when the prevailing culture deems it wrong. It seems that where a society does not perceive paedophilia as damaging, and it is not considered taboo or criminal and therefore does not have to be committed in secret or without consent, it possibly does not in fact automatically damage older children. I actually shuddered writing that, but it's hard to escape the bias of my own culture. I would like to see proper scientific studies carried out on this theory that if it's seen as normal, perhaps it is not necessarily harmful..
And as for the future, what would you feel if technology advanced to the stage that non-sentient child-shaped life-like androids could be made and given to paedophiles to keep them happy and away from real children? Take that to its logical conclusion and it could lead to a very differnt world.
Just to stress that I am obviously absolutely not condoning adults engaging in sexual activity with children of any age in any way, shape or form in our culture or any other, it's totally abhorrent to me. But one way or another, I feel this subject is not quite as cut and dried as we sometimes think.
Pedophiles have significantly less white matter, which is the connective tissue that is responsible for communication between different regions in the brain. Pedophiles perform more poorly on various tests of brain function, tend to be shorter in height and are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous (characteristics that are observable before birth).
shaking my head. say what? The way that is written it sounds like they are trying to say that you can tell a pedophile has certain characteristics before birth. Being left-handed or ambidextrous has nothing to do with pedophilia.
Now
If acting on sexual urges to molest children was so difficult for them then:
I can accept that the first time a pedophile touches a kid inappropriately he has to start planning - even before that first-time abuse stops.
He knows it is wrong just like anyone knows that no matter how much a person finds another person sexually attractive they don't walk up and start laying their hands on them.
He tells the victim all kinds of things to make the kid too scared to tell anyone. This takes planning.
Then he has to plan to get access a second time. And a third. The longer it goes on the more control he has over his victim. Remember that most victims are abused by someone they know well.
They know it is wrong and do it anyways. They carefully plan. These are not the actions of someone who is incapable of restraint or control. In fact they have a lot of control. Certainly a lot more control than the victim has.
For any crime you need 3 things:
Sexual predators have all three. And a cover story
HB, thank-you for your input. Is Pitcairn Island where you are referring to? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/opinion/29birkett.html?ref=pitcairn
