Esprix, now you’re being silly. Jodi makes an excellent point that you can’t believe that this guy hasn’t hurt any children just on his say-so, especially because it would be admitting to illegal activity.
One other thing - I saw no other Doper in any way justifying or condoning this man’s potential actions (which, again, he claimed he’d never done in the first place). Questions about his feelings, sure. Inquiries as to his point of view, yes. Telling him he was an ok upstanding guy because of it, not at all. Several people expressed outright revulsion (as I felt with the 6-year-old line), and, in the end, after all the questions had been asked and answered, the SDMB community would have, IMHO, made it known their own feelings on the matter, smacked him silly with any kind of specious or erroneous talk about age of consent laws, sexual development, or anything of the sort, that his feelings might be valid but that any actions would be heinous and criminal, and advised him often and soundly to get to a therapist and get help. This would not have been condoning, justifying, or allowing ignorance; if anything, we might have been able to help this man.
Esprix
Jarbabyj:
Accomplice to a pedophile?
Now you’re just trying to piss me off by being an asshole for its own sake.
Congratulations. You must be so proud.
What a waste of time.
Christ on a clydesdale Blacksheep, first of all I apologized. I have no desire to piss you off. You said that YOU felt by READING HIS POST that you were giving his position credibility, no?
I did not mean accomplice to pedophilia, I meant a sort of ‘literary accomplice’ in that I perceived you felt a feeling of ‘in cahoots’ by looking into his mind.
And if I’m wrong again in my perception I apologize. I apologize for everything I’ve ever done in my life. OK?
jarbaby
Wrong. I distinctly recall him saying that although he would be comfortable with a society that allowed it, he himself was not attracted to prebuescent girls.
Esprix
Of course not, but saying we have no basis for believing him at all because he’s some guy on a message board is ridiculous. As I said, if he was lying and had actually done so, there is no way any person on this board would have validated that action, and maybe, just maybe we could have convinced him to get the help he would, in that case, so desperately need.
Esprix
I was wondering about that. Other than the six-year-old-consent comment, he seemed to really want to avoid putting forth a minimum age, though. I remember him specificallly refusing to do so several times.
What might that have meant? Perhaps he was OK with an 12-year-old pubescent girl?
Did he mean he had hebephilic or pedophilic fantasies?
ESPRIX, I apologize that my point blew past you; allow me to try again to restate it:
The reason the guy’s word is inherently untrustworthy is not that this is a message board, but rather becasue he has admitted to having desires that are both (a) highly illegal if acted upon and (b) societally repugnant in the extreme if acted upon. In light of both (a) and (b), it is reasonable to assume that he would deny having acted upon these tendencies – that he would post “of course, I’ve never done this, I’ve only thought about it,” regardless of whether he has really done it or not. Only a fool cops to illegal and immoral activity on a public message board. This to me seems obvious.
And in light of that, I think people who say “well, he’s never done it; he says so!” are naive at best or morons at worse, not to put too fine a point on it.
If you can show me another poster who risks both arrest and public censure if he admits to having actually done something he conceded he does, in fact, really want to do, I will be suspicious of his denial as well. I trust you can see why this is not the same as taking someone at his or her word regarding things that are neither illegal nor loathed by society.
Waverly by treatment, I was NOT saying castration.
If you go to the first thread linked, search for my posts I spell out what you’ll find there.
I’ve also seen the ‘most reoffend’ statements, generally, they’re made like this:
“Studies show *up to *80% recidivism”. And when you check out the source data you find that out of say 5 studies, the results are 10%, 8% 15% 12% and one has 80% because it studied 5 people and 4 re offended.
You also have to be cautious as to how you’re using the term ‘offend again’. what most people assume you mean is that a molester will always molest again. And the data isn’t there to support it (or at least from the wide range of studies that I"ve seen) So, for example, if you find that out of the 80% figure cited for reoffending, only one molested again, the others were sent back for non related parole violations, drunk driving etc., that’s a different thing than ‘molesters can’t be treated’. I’m not saying those numbers are accurate, just to demonstrate that ‘reoffending’ is different from ‘molesting again’ and an important qualification. I’m also NOT saying that we shouldn’t care that the molester drove drunk or whatever, just that it shouldn’t be used as evidence that molesters will always molest again. (can you tell I’ve been around a while?)
In any event, here’s one study that supports that 87% don’t go on to molest again. (damn, I can’t get it to link, I know it did when I posted it in that thread, but in the meantime, heres a whole bunch more including
which includes this statement:
Note again, this is a very long term study (15 - 30 years) and counts all possible offenses (ie, one should not conclude that 61% molested again).
Suspicious? Absolutely, but you seem to be assuming he’s lying just because it would be in his best interests to. Occam’s razor much?
I disagree. For the purposes of the discussion he initiated, there was no reason to assume he was lying; and, as I said, if he was lying, perhaps while discussing it we might have convinced him that having done it was wrong, even if he never admitted to having done it at all.
Esprix
And another thing – I think that giving a pedophile a forum by which he can attempt to justify his predelictions is wrong, and I don’t care how the rest of the Board might have reacted to it. He can find himself a soapbox for his “kids can consent; it doesn’t hurt them; they like it” crappola elsewhere. I’m hard pressed to think of a greater waste of time than for a bunch of laypeople to earnestly beseech a pedophile to “get help.” He either knows he needs help or he’s rationalized his actions, and nothing anyone says in a piddly little forum like this would make him slap his forehead and go “My God, you’re right! I’m just a big ol’ sicko!”
And that his feelings might be “valid” if not acted on – what utter bullshit. God forbid we stand up and be counted as being against how anyone feels. Well, I do and I am. If you feel like sleeping with children, I’m not going to validate those feelings, I’m going to avoid you if possible and treat you with utter contempt if not.
ESPRIX
I did not assume he was lying; I was clearly responding to those who would assume he was not. Read much?
There was no reason to assume he was telling the truth, and at least two good reasons (listed above) to suspect that he was not. In the end, it doesn’t matter if he was or wasn’t; it remains my opinion that the decision to close the thread was a good one, if for no other reason than to deny him a forum by which he might attempt to justify his feelings or behavior. And I lack your touching faith in the ability of a bunch of lay-people strangers on a message board to convince a pedophile that his desires are wrong. But then I seem to lack your touching faith in pedophiles, period.
Really, Jodi? Wow, I never knew you were Vulcan, as you’re the first person I’ve ever met who has complete control over their emotions and feelings. I’m impressed.
Esprix
I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, but then that’s about par for the course.
For the purposes of the discussion he initiated, IMHO, it didn’t matter - any one of us could be lying in our expertise, so for the purposes of the discussion it seemed relevant to believe him. YMMV.
I agree that a forum for justifying his behavior is inappropriate, but I still think some good might have come of it.
IANATherapist, but desires and feelings are not inherently wrong; acting inappropriately on those feelings is.
Jodi, that is the lowest thing anyone has ever said to me. If you think for a moment I would ever, ever justify a pedophile’s behavior, then I will gladly put you on my same list as Falwell, Robertson and Phelps. That was way over the line and way beyond the pale of this discussion.
Esprix
Bingo.
ESPRIX –
Actually my M doesn’t V all that much. As I have already said, I was responding to those who attempted to defend the discussion by saying “Besides, he didn’t do it, he’s only thinking about it! He said so!” To which my response was and remains “Yeah, right, as if he’d tell us if he had.” Look, I was not the one raising the guys credibility as a selling point. My point is that, AFAIAC, he has none, for reasons I would have thought would be obvious (ie, he has ample cause to lie).
So we obviously disagree. Any opportunity for a pedophile to attempt to rationalize or justify his feelings or his behaviors is IMO an enabling tool for him. I want no part of it. I am not surprised this Board would want no part of it. I would be very surprised if they did.
And again we disagree. I believe that wishing to have sex with a child is wrong. Inherently wrong. Call me a judgmental meanie, but I want no part of any person who would admit in public to having such feelings – would admit to them in any context except in a private meeting with a therapist in order to best determine how to control them. The very idea of it sickens me, and I am not required to give house room to any such discussion, or to condemn others who – rightfully, IMO – also refuse to give such discussion house room.
I have never said you would justify the behavior of pedophiles, but you certainly appear more than willing to take a person with pedophilic tendencies at his word regarding his behavior and to condemn the Board for reasonably deciding that such a conversation is not within its mandate. I feel no obligation to empathize with pedophiles, or persons with pedophilic tendencies, and I find the very idea that such feelings would be deserving of “validation” to be itself contemptible. These are child molesters. To the extent that you interpreted my comment to mean that you would excuse pedophilic behavior, I do in fact apologize. I would never say such a thing about anyone.
I was referring to this comment:
The implication here is that he has control over his desires. I put it to you that no one does - control over consciously suppressing those desires, and control over acting on them, yes, but controlling the wellspring from whence they come? No. Only prolonged therapy (again, IANATherapist) can profoundly change that wellspring enough that those desires no longer come forth (psyche? soul? inherent psychological traits? chemical imbalance? any and all of the above?) If you have control over the deepest part of your psyche from where your basic emotions, feelings and desires come from, you’d be the first person I’d ever met who does.
Esprix
Thank God I missed the original thread, but I’m getting a feel for it now…
Thank you Mods/Admins! I applaud your decision to annihilate that thread.
During this discussion, someone compared the erased thread to threads about cannibalism, or bong-making. Is cannibalism illegal if you don’t kill the person before you eat them? Can’t you smoke tobacco in a water pipe?
My point? While the above two topics may be repugnant or disagreeable to some, they could be legal and considered a “kink.” There is nothing legally or morally defensible about pedophilia.
cannibalism on a **live ** person??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
(d&R)