That is not implied anywhere in anything I have said.
I don’t see why this is so hard to get. I don’t care why he’s attracted to kids. I don’t care that such attaction is not his fault. I loathe the very idea of it, with every fiber of my being. I refuse to “validate” such a feeling, because it is my firmly held belief that it is wrong. I don’t give a shit if he can control how he feels or not.
If I similarly had “feelings” which were so reprehensible and loathesome as to consider children to be sexual objects, I would fully expect that people would think less of me for having them. Especially if, instead of struggling with such feelings in the depths of my heart or the privacy of a therapist’s couch, I decided to air them on a public message board to debate whether or not they were really wrong.
Can “feelings” be wrong? I guess in my opinion they can be, if the feeling in question is the desire to stick it to a six year old.
And, again, regardless if he had or hadn’t, it’s also obvious that people wanted to ask him real, honest, straightforward questions that he seemed to be answering in a straightforward, honest manner. As several have already said, this is an ugliness that I, for one, would prefer to deal with head on instead of dismissing the entirety of the conversation with, “Ugh! That’s disgusting!”
As would I. The moderators are doing a fine job, regardless of any of our opinions.
Well, in fact, you are a judgmental meanie. Neither of us are therapists, but all my readings regarding therapy and psychiatry include the tenant that feelings, in and of themselves, are entirely neutral - it is the person experiencing those feelings that puts the labels of “good” and “bad” on them, and society is one of the many factors that helps that person label those feelings. I seriously doubt a trained professional is going to say to a patient, “Ugh! That’s disgusting!” I’m sure they wouldn’t get very far to determining the root cause of that person’s feelings. You can label his feelings all you want, but the fact remains, they are neutral in and of themselves.
I would, as morally abhorrent as it is. I’d rather understand it than shun it out of hand. I’d rather see that person get the help he needs.
Agreed - I don’t think anyone is brooking the Reader’s or Straight Dope’s right to close or delete the thread in question.
I have condemned no one of anything, or does discussing actions of this board bring down your vilification as much as discussing one’s feelings?
Of course there is, so long as the pedophile never * acts * on their thoughts. It is perfectly legal to BE a pedophile. It is NOT legal to have sex with children.
What is the big problem people seem to have with making this distinction?
ESPRIX, it is pretty clear we are on opposite sides of the fence here. You want to understand the guy’s feelings, I’ll leave you to it. But I am required neither to respect those feelings nor those who wish to understand them. I am no fan of moral absolutism, but this sort of “we must understand the child molester’s feelings; we must validate those feelings” strikes me as the worst sort of moral relativism and, as you might have gathered, I view it with contempt. Period. I am neither surprised nor distressed to find that you do, in fact, consider me a judgmental meanie; I begin to believe that I will only have cause for concern if you start approving of my behavior, since your values are obviously so entirely different from my own.
I don’t believe anyone is making that requirement of you.
I don’t know why you have a problem trying to understand why someone feels the way they do - it is the first step towards a healthier life for him, and a better understanding of the world around us for you (or me, or whoever is participating). And, for the umpteenth time, no one was validating his feelings - discussion about and validation of are two entirely different things.
I agree that it is may be the first step for a healthier life for the individual to understand his or her own motivations. That’s why I think the guy should take the problem up with his therapist. As for the rest of it – that understanding a pedophile’s desires leads to “a better understanding of the world around us” – I think that’s utter bullshit, from beginning to end. I realize that you “don’t know why” I hold this position, but I also think I’ve made it as clear as I can. So if you not only don’t agree with it but don’t even get it . . . :: Shrug ::
Let me remind you that YOU said:
Seeing as how you yourself pointed out that such a discussion might well have led to the validation of his feelings, it’s odd in the extreme that you would now say that “no one” has suggestion such a thing is possible.
In all fairness, at the very least it does help us understand what kind of people are likely to become pedophiles, and how to keep our children away from them. That is, of course, a matter for law enforcement and child protection officials, but as a purely academic matter, I have an interest in it.
Just as I have a copy of the criminal justice textbook “Sexual Homicide” on my bookshelf. I certainly don’t condone serial killing, but I think it’s important for the people charged with protecting us from serial killers to understand the circumstances that create them. I have an academic interest in the subject, so I read the material. If I had the chance to personally speak with a serial killer behind bars, I would do it.
I agree that we’re all entitled to be disgusted by people who feel certain things, but if some guy gets off by masturbating to issues of “Mary Kate and Ashley Olson” magazine, it’s no skin off my back. In fact, I’ll buy him a subscription, if it will keep him from harming any children.
Tuba, thank you for your comments. Since the remark to which I objected followed quoted text by me, I naturally assumed it was directed at me. But I appreciate your apology.
The study of social psychology has no merit? We can’t learn anything from each other? Understanding an individual in no way contributes to a greater understanding of the whole? I wholeheartedly disagree.
I was unclear as to which definition of “validate” I was using. Having feelings in and of themselves is perfectly valid, regardless of what those feelings are; validating those feelings by regarding them as acceptable is another situation. The fact that he has these feelings is worthy of attention, but justifying them is not. (Then again, perhaps I’m splitting etymological hairs.)
Since you are reduced to arguing against things I very clearly never said, it appears we are, in fact, done. Or at least I am. If you wish to refute points I never made and things I never said, you hardly need me around to do it. Just make up whatever you wish I’d said, and then knock it down and congratulate yourself on your brilliance. That will keep you occupied and also allow me to go home, which is what I intend to do right now now.
Wring:
In your first cited study, it seems they have grouped all sex offender together. I hope we can agree pedophilia is a different animal than other sex crimes. I later found that cites 1 and 3 were included in the list of cite 2. I note that cite 3 produces numbers, but is not specific about the type of recidivism. Fair enough.
The second site took some going through. I will report every instance of numerical data I found, provided it is specific to pedophiles. I have not omitted data that conflicts with my opinion:
32% is lower, but still very disturbing [FWIW, I even if the 10% numbers were proven to be true, I’d be disturbed]
The type of recidivism is not specified, but we know 43% to be ‘violent or sexual’. Disturbing.
This one comes closer to supporting your opinion, but these lower numbers are in the minority.
Quite a discrepancy, and no the author does not explain it.
From your own cites, I can conclude: 1) There are large discrepancies, making definitions, statistical analysis, and technique suspect. Unfortunately I did not find anyone reporting enough information for me to make a judgment on this. 2) Your sub 20% recidivism rates are in the minority. 3) While my earlier cites appear on the opposite end of the spectrum, IMHO I find the Quinsy and Canadian studies not only are the most specific with their numbers [including an idea of recidivism type], they also agree closely at 43% and 42% respectively.
Just supporting the moderator decision. IMHO th OP was currying acceptance and/or justification for his feelings. In any case, the SDMB could possibly be responsible for making the bad situation worse. Whether he acted on his feelings of not can be very subjective. A relative of mine subjected young girls to slobbering hugs pressing his erection through his clothes against their bodies. I became aware of this when the girls were much older. I challenged him on this, but he claimed he did nothing wrong (no penetration or visual sexual display ).He died of old age, a very respected member of the community. Hell, he was my grandfather.
Mother Theresa on a moped, can we all agree this is a psych/soc, first-amendment vs. responsibility nightmare and stop attributing the worst possible motives to one another? It’s all filtered through rampant, numerous individual judgements.
For the record I fully support the actions taken by Czar and validated by TubaDiva. The Dope is one small corner of the free-wheeling universe of online exchange and–chaotic as we are–it IS just one outlet among many. Snopes targets UL’s, we’re more open to community and jazzing but there’s–literally–a whole universe of choices out there.
Each place draws their lines, for their own reasons, in relation to their own purposes and outlets available elsewhere. This is one community among many; one formed from ramapageous, cussed individualists but FAR from the only game in town. Forget the inane “excommunication” excuse.
NOBODY’S voice is stifled if they have have a keyboard and the wit to look around. Wanna a sweaty chat-room or even carefully, intellecutalized discussion about the yen to pork kids? Sure, online therapy works wonders. Go for it. But not here.
Sheesh, what in the sideways, differently-principled name of Cece himself misled anyone into confusion about this? Oh, I bet he’d address it. But his most charitable label would be “maggot”.
We may never know unless he posts again, though of course there would be a good chance that someone who did have pedophilic fantasies would lie about it.
When you get down to the ages of 12 or so it can actually go either way, which makes it tricky to understand what exactly people are trying to allow when they condone an age of consent that low - a true pedophile might say that he thought the age of consent should be lowered to 12 because there are many who are well into puberty at that age, but not discuss the fact that he wants it that low because there are 12 year olds who are still very much children physically. I knew a girl growing up who was 16 before she started her period, and looked about 10 or 11 at that age, what would you call a person who was physically attracted to her (BTW, I wasn’t)? She would be legal in many states, but it would be hard to imagine a normal man being attracted to her. I know another girl who is 22 but looks about 10 years younger than that - I think she’s already hit puberty, it’s just that it didn’t have much effect on her secondary physical characteristics.
In my opinion age of consent should always be fairly close to age of majority, or at least the age that a person is considered an adult by their culture. I think an adult man who had a sexual relationship with a 15 year old in the USA, no matter how well developed and mature for her age she was, would be taking advantage of her in a way and it would be unlikely to be a healthy relationship for either of them, while it would be perfectly acceptable in a country where people are expected to start families in their mid-teens and had been brought up to be prepared for that responsibility by then. On the other end of the scale, if it was customary for people to remain at home and dependent on their parents until they were 25, and were denied the rights associated with adulthood until that age, most 21 year olds would not be prepared for a sexual relationship, at least not one with a person considered an adult in this hypothetical culture.
There are a couple of things I don’t understand. Firstly, why are people being accused of condoning or sympathising with a child molester? Does anyone really think that anyone who’s posted in this thread so far condones child molesters??? Secondly, as Stoid and Esprix pointed out, how can anyone fail to distinguish between feelings and actions? Yesterday I thought of coming into work with a machine gun and violently executing my boss plus the rat fink who got me in trouble… but in real life I literally cannot hurt a fly. I understand that it would be wrong to plan such an action. But if it’s just an idle keyboard dream…?
I agree that any amount of recidivism by a child molester is appauling.
I posted data to prove the original and often quoted, and entirely wrong information that:
a. Molesters always reoffend.
b. They re-offend more than other criminals.
Of course the data varies, but the ‘they always reoffend’ is so often stated as fact (I also saw it in the online version of Time magazine) that I feel it’s important to note that data simply does not support that at all.
Most folks fear the child snatcher variety, however, all of the data I’ve seen suggests that in the great majority of the cases, the molester is some one known to the family (a family member, trusted neighbor, friend, church/civic leader etc.)
Even if the 20% or whatever is the ‘low end’, and the 40% you think is more accurate is the high end, it’s a great deal different from “all” or even “most”, and less than ‘other’ criminals. But in the interest of maintaining the quality of info posted at the Straight Dope, I felt it was important to not allow those ‘all’ and ‘most’ statements to go unchallenged.
And, of course, we’d prefer that it be zero percent.
So. Molesting children = very bad thing. Claiming that they ‘always reoffend’ is incorrect.
Wring Well, it’s normally easy to discredit ‘all’ or ‘always’ statements. Thank god [checks back] I didn’t make one. However, we aren’t talking about shop lifting, so if 40% of child molesters can be counted on to offend again despite efforts to rehabilitate, I’d say it behooves us to protect our children and remove them from polite society. 60% are favorable odds and I’d take them in any game of chance, but I would never bet a child’s welfare on such odds.
To put this back in terms relevant to the vanished thread: the OP didn’t see anything morally wrong with the act, he merely noted societal stigmas. Despite other people’s memory that the stated he would never ‘touch’ a child, I recall it stated as he would never ‘rape’ a child. IMO, such semantic games and excuse mongering are not the rhetoric of one who has been successfully rehabilitated. IAMAP, but I would think that admitting the behavior is wrong would be one of the first steps in recovery.
** - my concern, as expressed, is that this particular one keeps on getting made, over and over again, was in fact made here, and often is quoted as ‘the experts say’ etc.
** well, now we’re in a different debate. And, I’ve seen (both empiracle studies & anectdotal stuff), some real differences. For me personally, given what I’ve seen etc, those who do the snatch a strange child should never see free society again. That level of lack of impulse control is dangerous to all. as for the rest, I don’t think a hard and fast rule is appropriate, based on what I’ve seen in the field. To me, there is a realistic difference when the two people are close in age vs. large difference (while I certainly didn’t want my son to be sexually active before he turned 16, and I kept a stern eye on his 17 year old girlfriend, I don’t think it would have been accurate to lable her a child molester had they gone farther than he admits) Some jurisdictions do not show a difference. There seemed to be some other specific categories/types etc. where the subsequent victimization was rare. In addition, if you read the threads I listed, I’d posted my list of what we, as parents, could do, should do etc. to reasonably protect our own children against molesters. Diminish the victim pool. (** still concerned lest folks think I’m ‘blaming the victim’ NO, absolutely I’m not blaming the victim here, what I do, however, advocate is that we pro-actively protect our own children against any molesters, much the same as I’d advocate for immunizations)
**
Oh, absolutely - and if you’ll check, I was (and am) supportive of the closure of the thread. But I’m in favor (in general) of allowing judges to do what we’ve hired them to do (look at individual facts in cases, weigh the individual and case specific data, apply the appropriate sentencing guidlines, going over when needed, yet not automatically giving the max for every case.
I just want to say I see a real differance between someone in thier early 20’s or less who has sex with a post pubescent teen, as opposed to someone who says sex with a 6 year old is ok. I would hardly call the former a pedohpile. While what they are doing is wrong, and should be punished, it is not nearly the same, or even neccesarrily a sickness at all. It definately belongs in another catagory