Pedophiles....

[ughaibu]

Qfwfq: You may be talking about maturity, I'm talking about hysterical behaviour associated with a blanket definition of paedophilia. Basically I would say there are three typical cases coming under the definition of paedophilia:

1) rape/murder

2) coerced sex involving an established relationship

3) consensual sex between partners prohibited by law

The first case is rare, when such a thing occurs, it's sad but it is a minor danger to children in comparison to eg motor traffic. The second case concerns incest, sex under the pressure of a relationship exerted by a family member, friend or neighbour. Naturally these are matters in which the law has a valid role. However, the general hysterical fear of case 1) that exists in, at least, the UK is, in my opinion, socially damaging. Kids and adults now inhabit almost seperate worlds, one no longer sees kids playing in the streets or walking home alone from school. There also occur outrages like Cleveland, and the assaults, petrol bombings, etc (including cases of mistaken identity) that occur when the mass hysteria has one of it's peaks.

The third case, as far as I can see, is nobody but the couple themselves' business. Yet all three cases come under the blanket definition of paedophilia and are subject to these hysterical reactions. Read that ridiculous post above, a guy claims he'll kill anyone who finds his daughter attractive before she's eighteen, I'm thankful that I wasn't burdened with such a parent. The realities are not even being examined due to blindness from this hysteria.

Sexual relations normally proceed from an emotional base, this is as true of paedophiles generally as it is of non-paedophiles. Without the involvement of caring, sexually inactive paedophiles, there would be far less help for children provided by charitable organisations.

[Qfwfq]

Qfwfq: You may be talking about maturity, I'm talking about hysterical behaviour associated with a blanket definition of paedophilia.

Many besides me talk about it in terms of maturity, experience and ability to defend themselves, including the site you linked to and apparently haven't bothered to understand. If you can't be bothered then I guess neiher can I.

 

Sexual relations normally proceed from an emotional base, this is as true of paedophiles generally as it is of non-paedophiles. Without the involvement of caring, sexually inactive paedophiles, there would be far less help for children provided by charitable organisations.

:hihi:

 

There's a great huge whacking difference between "caring about" and "screwing" or otherwise satisfying lust and if you don't see this difference, further reason to leave you to your opinions and keep my own.

[Qfwfq]

P. S. Your last remark especially put me off because of someone having had the tendency to disguise morbid and molestive manners as being loving and caring. Sorry, but I won't follow this topic any further.

[ughaibu]

You reply is an example. Paedophiles are not automatically people who consider children to be inhuman objects irrelevant to anything but their sexual desires.

And your other points are subject to considerations of region and culture.

[TheFaithfulStone]

You reply is an example. Paedophiles are not automatically people who consider children to be inhuman objects irrelevant to anything but their sexual desires.

And your other points are subject to considerations of region and culture.

 

 

W. T. F.

 

Are you serious? That's the DEFINITION of a pedophile. People who just "like kids" aren't pedophiles. People who have sex with children are pedophiles.

 

I would posit that pedophillia is a bit like pornography - I can't define it but I know it when I see it. A 35 year old having sex with a 16 or 17 year old? Pedophile. A 16 year old having sex with another 16 year old? Probably not a pedophile.

 

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) the law doesn't work like that. If you're 15 and I'm 17, that makes me a pedophile. Laws just simply aren't much use for fine distinctions and shades of grey. That's a shortcoming of law itself not of society or of human acceptance, just like we all know that sometimes it's okay to steal stuff (except for you Objectivists in the crowd) the law doesn't make the distinction. Sometimes people really deserve to die, but the law doesn't make the allowance that you can kill the man who abused your children.

 

Now, you can argue all you want that the age of consent is misplaced, but it's a stupid discussion because the age of consent will always be misplaced. There will always be people who are able to make informed decisions before then, and always be people who will never be able to make informed decisions. Whether or not 13 year olds can offer informed consent is irrelevant. Some can, and some can't.

 

But there is NO argument that can possibly be made that it is ever okay to deny agency to another for the sake of your own comfort. A pedophile's life is not in danger, not his property, or his future, or anything other than his urges. And it is simply not okay to do unto others for the sake of making yourself feel better. I cannot imagine an argument that claims this that does not hinge on the assumption that some people have more moral worth than others, and that's a premise I'm not willing to accept, as it leads nowhere but bloody chaos.

 

There are a few in the crowd who seem to arguing that the age of consent is much much lower than it is currently set. My advice? Keep it in your pants until she turns 18. Can't handle that? If it were really about "caring for an individual" then the "age of consent" argument is irrelevant because you could wait. Then it really isn't about "love" is it? It's sex. With children. Simple.

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

My brother in law's mother was married at thirteen.

Does that make Jerry Lee Lewis your Grand-uncle-in-law?

 

Yes, there are cultural difference around the world. But because something is accpted in some culture: A) does not alone make it appropriate for another culture. :rolleyes: does not make it moral/right. Just because kids used to marry doesn't mean that it was OK then or now. So it is no defense of the practice to say that it has happened.

 

Bill

[ughaibu]

TheBigDog: I am not attempting to defend all practices under the blanket term 'paedophilia', I am trying to point out that the definition of paedophilia is unsatisfactory. The A), :rolleyes: situation applies equally in both directions, it's not our affair to decide what is appropriate for other cultures. Sexually, the age of consent defines childhood, the only function of that list was to demonstrate that childhood is defined differently by different cultures, and even within countries. Childhood is a cultural and behavioural phenomenon, it isn't something black and white. This is relevant to my class 3), when sex is sought by someone whose age makes consumation a crime for their lover.

As far as I can see, the problem primarilly concerns incestuous relationships. Unless a distinction is made among the practices presently classed as paedophile, the problem of the relation values that lead to incest are not being considered.

[TheFaithfulStone]

3), when sex is sought by someone whose age makes consumation a crime for their lover.

 

That just means the responsibility for refusal is on the older person. This is not a good defense.

 

I certaintly hope you're just playing devil's advocate, because it seems to me that your arguments justify a terrifying number of moral outrages on the basis of "consent."

 

The other problem is that if we TRAIN our children to leave home at 12, then they will probably be able to take care of themselves at twelve. If we TRAIN them to leave at 18, then that's probably when they can take care of themselves.

 

TFS

[Rebiu]

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) the law doesn't work like that. If you're 15 and I'm 17, that makes me a pedophile. Laws just simply aren't much use for fine distinctions and shades of grey. That's a shortcoming of law itself not of society or of human acceptance, just like we all know that sometimes it's okay to steal stuff (except for you Objectivists in the crowd) the law doesn't make the distinction. Sometimes people really deserve to die, but the law doesn't make the allowance that you can kill the man who abused your children.

 

Now, you can argue all you want that the age of consent is misplaced, but it's a stupid discussion because the age of consent will always be misplaced. There will always be people who are able to make informed decisions before then, and always be people who will never be able to make informed decisions. Whether or not 13 year olds can offer informed consent is irrelevant. Some can, and some can't.

 

But there is NO argument that can possibly be made that it is ever okay to deny agency to another for the sake of your own comfort. A pedophile's life is not in danger, not his property, or his future, or anything other than his urges. And it is simply not okay to do unto others for the sake of making yourself feel better. I cannot imagine an argument that claims this that does not hinge on the assumption that some people have more moral worth than others, and that's a premise I'm not willing to accept, as it leads nowhere but bloody chaos.

Well said.

 

There are a few in the crowd who seem to arguing that the age of consent is much much lower than it is currently set. My advice? Keep it in your pants until she turns 18. Can't handle that? If it were really about "caring for an individual" then the "age of consent" argument is irrelevant because you could wait. Then it really isn't about "love" is it? It's sex. With children. Simple.

 

TFS

Here you become a bit hazy. I am assuming none of the posters to this board are interacting sexually with children therefore the dialogue is more on how to perceive child sexual activity. I find it interesting to see the use of flowery dialogue like "love" as though it were a substitute for what a child needs in terms of human interaction.

 

It has been my experience that people have a need for intimacy that tends to lead to sexual arousal and desire. This is not a behavior pattern that is turned on at puberty. Puberty increase the urge for intimacy it does not create it. It is my understanding that children are physically fully functional sexually including the capacity for arousal and orgasm. I personally have plenty of sexual outlet, but I am not a child so my sexual inclinations are not the issue. The issue is how to perceive child sexuality. How should we respond if we find out our child is willingly participating in sexual behavior with a much older of younger child? How about if we find our child has initiating and is going to considerable lengths to sustain repeated sexual contact with an adult? I suspect many think this is an unreal hypothetical so I will share some personal anecdotes.

 

When I was 26 I dated a twice-divorced 26-year-old woman who had four children, but only custody of her 7-year-old daughter. I would come over after work and after mother would be in the shower. I would sit in the living room where the daughter was watching TV. The daughter made repeated intimate and sexual advances at me. They were not verbal but behavioral. She touched inappropriately as well suggesting we go into her bedroom. This happened on many occasion and revealed a concerted effort on her part to have intimate physical contact with me. I spent the night (in the mothers room) and one time we heard the child up at night. She was in the living room engaged in sexually stimulating behavior. When my sister babysat for her she reported that the child had made repeated sexual advances at her. She persisted in this behavior in spite of repeated admonishments. Why? How should she have been dealt with? To what extent could her sexuality have been suppressed and at what damage to herself? If she had successfully enticed an adult into a sexual act what should their punishment be?

[InfiniteNow]

I'd say she picked this up by modelling the behavior of her mother... social learning theory/Albert Bandura.

[Rebiu]

There's a great huge whacking difference between "caring about" and "screwing" or otherwise satisfying lust and if you don't see this difference, further reason to leave you to your opinions and keep my own.

What is the huge difference? Is it a matter of degree in your mind or is sex a hostile act of dominance for you? Please consider that pedophilia does not require intercourse, genitals or even touching.

[Buffy]

When I was 26 I dated a twice-divorced 26-year-old woman who had four children, but only custody of her 7-year-old daughter....The daughter made repeated intimate and sexual advances at me....How should she have been dealt with? To what extent could her sexuality have been suppressed and at what damage to herself? If she had successfully enticed an adult into a sexual act what should their punishment be?

That's pretty much proof that she'd been molested. Sexual behavior and libido *does* require hormones. If this kind of behavior occurs before the hormones kick in, you can be pretty much guaranteed that its learned behavior.

 

What should have been done? Get her to a psychologist and call the cops immediately. Molested kids often do not show "damage" and "fear", they in fact become overly sexualized. This is *not* good, no matter how "normal" her behavior might seem if she was an adult. It may not look like damage, but its likely that without psychological help, she will have trouble forming normal relationships for the rest of her life.

 

Things are not always what they appear to be,

Buffy

[Rebiu]

That's pretty much proof that she'd been molested. Sexual behavior and libido *does* require hormones. If this kind of behavior occurs before the hormones kick in, you can be pretty much guaranteed that its learned behavior.

This is the kind of extreme generic reaction that does more harm than good. Let me remind you I had fairly extensive sexual contact at that age and I consider myself "normal". Babies sometime figure out how to stimulate themselves to orgasm. Libido exist the child simple do not know how to sustain it or that orgasm is its end result. My own children show a persistent interest in sexual activity I have had to use fairly harsh admonishments of prevent spying.

 

What should have been done? Get her to a psychologist and call the cops immediately.

Is this so I can be considered a suspect? How about the repressed memories that have convicted innocent adults? I worked with kids at a youth detention facility and they are forced to convince the psychologists that they believe what was done to them was wrong or what they did to someone else was wrong. My experience has been that far more damage is done through this course of action.

Molested kids often do not show "damage" and "fear", they in fact become overly sexualized. This is *not* good, no matter how "normal" her behavior might seem if she was an adult. It may not look like damage, but its likely that without psychological help, she will have trouble forming normal relationships for the rest of her life.

Here comes another anecdote. I worked with a woman one who told me that her and her friends used to play with Barbie and Ken dolls. The common play dynamic was that Ken would come over to Barbie’s house, tie up Barbie and do something to here. They did not know what but they played out the scenario often. The tied up part must represent mechanism to avoid the guilt that was instilled in them to prevent their own sexual exploration. The ignorance of these girls shows that they had not been pedophiled and yet the intense desire was there.

[TheBigDog]

What is the huge difference? Is it a matter of degree in your mind or is sex a hostile act of dominance for you? Please consider that pedophilia does not require intercourse, genitals or even touching.

The ones that don't require those things, or child porn are not the problem. If someone is pleasureing themsleves, I don't give a damn what the thought in his head is. It is when the acts cross over to involving others, weather through contact or exhibitionism or roleplaying, when the acts begin to involve victims that there is a problem. If someone fantisizes about acts of pedophelia they are just a phantasist. When they act on the fantasy and create a victim they are a pedophile. To state otherwise would create thought crimes.

 

Bill

[Cedars]

You are drawing this pretend line between adulthood and childhood that does not exist. If I sexually desired a 7 year old when I was 6 and I remember and reexperience that same sexual desire at age 30 than I am a monster. We do not desire things sexually because how they look but what our mind associates their appearance to. If you think of helpless needy when you think of a child then you may feel no desire for intimacy. If your mind associates a person who wants to give and share intimacy when they think of a child then they may feel a desire for intimacy. Many fathers stop hugging and showing physical affection to their daughters at puberty because of the sexual arousal they feel in doing so. In your estimation they are pedophiles. They truth is they are normal.

 

Again, its not a pretend line. It is verifiable physically.

 

If you look at your neighbors child and experience sexual desires yes, you are on the line of a potential offender. If you are thinking back on what occured and not fantasing about others, it falls under memory. You are entitled to have memory. Its if/when you start putting yourself (an adult) in that fantasy with this existing child that you would trip a red flag for me.

 

As far as fathers who are experiencing this, the normal reaction IS to stop hugging and showing physical affection. Their choice is because they do not want to experience these feelings. Understand? They do not want to have these impulses.

 

The problem is when children are given no acceptable outlet to experiment and grow into adults. In you efforts to protect them form the serial rapist/kidnapper/murderer you would banish all human behavior of a sexual nature from their access. Perhaps you could tell me when sexual experimentations is appropriate and with who.

 

As far as I know, its not against any law for a person to experiment with themselves sexually, no matter what the age they are. So as far as I am concerned there are acceptable outlets for people to explore their bodies. You exaggerate when you claim banishment of all sexual human behavior. Simply put, this claim is false. Additionally, sexuality requires self control and personal responsiblity and these are instilled when in your youth (control and responsiblity).

[TheBigDog]

I would think you all have some skeletons in the closet on this issue with the intense and excessive displays of disgust, anger and violence you display at the mention of this subject.

We all have skeletons in the closet. We all deal with them differently. for the most part you sound as if you have come to terms with your own. That is not sufficient to judge how experienced such things or how they dealt with them.

 

Perhaps if we all share out deepest darkest a more balanced view will emerge.

 

I had my first sexual contact at about age 4. It is one of the few things I remember from that age. The perpetrator was a girl of about 16. I never wanted anything bad to happen to her as a result and I consider it to have been a positive experience.

OK. You see it as a positive experience. People who spent years in prison camps and suffered torture sometimes look back on that as a positive experience too, something that most people find difficult to believe. So your personal dealings with your experience is not a basis for judging the the right and wrong of the action. For a 16 year old to engage in sexual acts with a for year old is reprehensible. It doesn't matter that she was good at it or that it was enjoyed. It is wrong. If this was in the US it was a crime too. And it is easy to believe that you were not th only partner she had. Was the experience the same for the others? There is no relativism. Any sexual act with a four year old is off base. And 4 year olds engaging in sexual acts should be redireced toward other acts. Find something different to do.

I had another sexual experience at about age 6 and this girl was most likely about 14. She asked before she did anything and did not press when I said no.

Again. If a 14 year old is propositioning a 6 year old this is just dead wrong. If ANYONE is propositioning a 4 or six year old it is dead wrong. I don't give a damn about culture or any other "contributing factor".

Next sexual interaction was probable at are 7 with a girl my age.

This is common among kids of that age who are near the same age. Typically out of anitomical curiosity. It is very normal but usually ends because girls are gross.

I suspect that my six year old is engaging in some form of sexual interaction with the girl down the street. I have asked him about it but he says nothing happens. What should my response be?

Let him know that it is not bad, but appropriate. Talk to the other kid's parents about your suspicions so you both can handle this in the same fashion if it is true. If they are the same age this is typical discovery that kids go through. And it happens about the time kids learn to keep secrets.

 

Bill

[Buffy]

That's pretty much proof that she'd been molested. Sexual behavior and libido *does* require hormones. If this kind of behavior occurs before the hormones kick in, you can be pretty much guaranteed that its learned behavior.

This is the kind of extreme generic reaction that does more harm than good. Let me remind you I had fairly extensive sexual contact at that age and I consider myself "normal".

There you've gone and proven my point: You were molested and your reaction is to think that it is "normal" as a defensive mechanism. Now in your mind, anyone who has different opinions about sexual conduct is the one who is "perverted." The fact that you "admonish" your kids and that you don't engage in pedophilia, does not mean that you have not through other means sexualized them, and thus may cause them problems as well. I would not punish you for that: you have done nothing overtly wrong, but they are obviously going to have to deal with the fact that you never got help.

 

This line of reasoning probably has you spitting mad, but the voices you are arguing against are just as mad at your inability to see the problem.

Is this so I can be considered a suspect? How about the repressed memories that have convicted innocent adults? I worked with kids at a youth detention facility and they are forced to convince the psychologists that they believe what was done to them was wrong or what they did to someone else was wrong. My experience has been that far more damage is done through this course of action.

Yes, you could be considered a suspect, and I won't be goaded into saying that the system is perfect, but conversely, you can't say that because there are flaws in the system, that *no action should be taken*. That is the best way to ensure that the negative consequences of molestation continue to propagate endlessly. When I read you initial description of this situation, my immediate reaction was to assume that your girlfriend had *no clue* that her child had been molested. The parents are *usually* not responsible *and* are oblivious to the signs.

I worked with a woman one who told me that her and her friends used to play with Barbie and Ken dolls. The common play dynamic was that Ken would come over to Barbie’s house, tie up Barbie and do something to here. They did not know what but they played out the scenario often. The tied up part must represent mechanism to avoid the guilt that was instilled in them to prevent their own sexual exploration. The ignorance of these girls shows that they had not been pedophiled and yet the intense desire was there.

There you go proving my point again. Its *familiarity* and *willingness to pursue* the act demonstrated in your first anecdote that indicates molestation. My daughter likes to think she has a "boyfriend" at school, but she does not even really talk to him and she thinks that "kissing is gross". *That's* normal behavior for a pre-teen. Trying to put her hand down your pants is a big huge red flag.

 

I'm not sure what to think of your interpretation that being tied up is evidence of "guilt...to prevent theri own sexual exploration": you are sexualizing children in a way that our society does not consider normal at all, and those of us with feminist leanings are more prone to think that 1) its evidence of how they interpret the aggressive behavior of boys and 2) its evidence that they were at some point introduced to this concept as "normal" which it is not: media, parents, who knows, but its not something that "most" of us enjoy, nor is it "obvious".

 

Cheers,

Buffy