Well, that’s a bit rude.
My point was that different studies have different findings. I don’t necessarily trust the 3.3 figure any more than I trust the ones I cited. Each study has its own flaws.
Unless you check the methodology, scope, length and definitions in each study, merely citing a statistic means little. No study seems to account for all of the possible variables.
First off, a quote I found interesting, from the DSM-IV “pedophilia in terms of recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children, and requires that the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning”
So, by definition a pedophile is a recurrent offender.
And, a study I read showed that child molestors recurrency rates are higher several years after thier release “finding that pedophiles relapse with the highest frequency several years after discharge”, from canadian correctional services.
So it’s possible that the recurrency rates are even higher than what we know. I’ll take the 20% metacom came to, and if we consider that over time those rates will increase, that will go up. To what? Even twenty percent is 1 in 5 (cite, basic math), and I found another study that shows the recurrency rate to be 26% (sadly, I lost the link), and even that is over a limited time period. That’s more than 1 in 4.
I find it a little to disturbing to attempt to argue that pedophiles actually hurt children. If you think that a grown man having sex with a twelve year old is ok, whatever, I don’t want to communicate with you, that seems more of a moral problem than something that can be explained through facts, but if you don’t believe that, than how can you look at 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 pedophiles hurting another child, and say that is ok?
Not so. According to that definition, someone who has recurrent fantasies about prepubescent children is a pedophile, if they happen often enough to be distressing. Fantasies are still legal.
When you’re talking about hurting children, it’s important to distinguish between encounters that are willing and unwanted, from the child’s perspective. (I would say “consensual” and “nonconsensual”, but the legal sense of those words doesn’t apply here.)
According to this study, children who have only unwanted sexual encounters are psychologically harmed, but children who have willing sexual encounters are not:
Of course, I’m not making any claims about the number of wanted vs. unwanted encounters, or the individual mentioned in the OP.
Wrong. Reread the definition. A pedophile has recurrent sexual fantasies about prepubescent children. He need not engage in actual activity to be considered a pedophile. And since it says “recurrent fantasies, urges or behaviors,” a pedophile is not necessarily a repeat offender (since that would imply action on his part).
I don’t think anyone in this thread has claimed that having sex with children is OK.
Several hundred years ago, it wasn’t all that uncommon for a girl to be married at twelve or thirteen. Margaret Beaufort (grandmother of Henry VIII) had her first (and only) child at age thirteen.
In the modern era, we stringently de-sexualize children, but in the past, such a mindset would have been foreign. Females were generally considered to be marriageable as soon as they began menstruating. (Though some physicians counseled waiting for consumation out of fear that giving birth might injure the girl at such a tender age, their advice was not always followed.)
Going further back in time, in some cultures, it was perfectly acceptable (even laudable, in the eyes of the poets) for an adult man to take a prepubescent boy as a lover.
All I’m saying is that it’s a matter of perspective. We judge what is moral through the lens of our culture.
FWIW I think that study is a crock.
Statutory rape a “positive” experience? It’s okay if children have “wanted” sexual experiences? PUHLEZE.
THEY ARE CHILDREN! Hell yes it’s damaging if an 11 year old has sex even if she’s 11 going on 32 and a walking hormone! Lots of 11 year olds can get pregnant!!! And what happens when she’s in her 20s and wakes up and realizes that Jimmy was totally playing her?
Another thing I want to know: how did they define “significantly older person?” The study cited allowed for sexual experiences as teenagers. What guy isn’t going to say “why yes, I did enjoy screwing my friend’s hot older sister when she was 18 and I was 14?”
Who funded this study, anyway? NAMBLA?
What happens to a twenty year old woman who sleeps with a man professing true love, only to find out he’s ditched her in the morning?
Pain is pain, no matter what age you may be.
Don’t let the word “rape” confuse you there.
Back when I was a young lad with a younger girlfriend, I engaged in some activities that would have been considered statutory rape if they occurred a few hundred miles away. It was indeed a positive experience for both of us.
Well, according to the… wait… hold on, something’s coming in over the ticker.
It goes on, but I think you get the gist of it. Something about a Nobel prize nomination in there, I think - you might want to check it out for yourself. I bet it’s all over Google News by now. 
From the section “Definitions of CSA, Prevalence Rates, and Types of CSA”:
Mr2002- that was brilliant & very very funny. Kudos!
And you are correct, I should have added consensual sex between two minors, but AFAIK, IANAL YMMV that isn’t illegal in all juristicions.
And, it sort of depends on the type of sexual encounter and the ages, yes? I have met 15yo’s who are VERY mature, and AFAIK IANAL there are some States where kids that young can get married- with parental consent. Now, if it is perfectly legal to have sex with a 15yo if you are married to her/him- we must assume that such a sexual encounter is not mind-scarring. :dubious: Thus- why should it be all that EVIL if the parties are NOT married?
Then also, if Mr Pervert takes pics of little Suzy on the swing when her skirt flies up, and then goes home and masturbates to them- how does that hurt little Suzy? Even if she knows Mr Pervert took the pics?
That’s the problem- too many “pedophiles” and “registered sex offenders” are just products of our current morality. Let’s concentrate on the REAL sickos, and just keep an eye on the rest, OK?
Actually, it wasn’t uncommon in the upper classes, but quite rare amongst the ordinary folks. I’ve read a study, for instance, mentionning that the average age of first marriage in France (according to still existing registers) was around 26 for males and 20 for females in the XV° (IIRC) century.
Although I agree with you in general, I want to point out that, AFAIK, there is an issue of consent here. The child’s parents must agree to someone taking a picture of her. If we take “little Suzy” to mean a girl of, say, 12 years old, I don’t think she can understand the situation enough to give a rational decision. Of course, that just applies to most–but not all–children; kids do in fact mature at different ages (both physically and mentally).
Legally, that may be.
But I think DrDeth’s point was that even if Mr. Pervert takes a picture against the wishes of Suzy and her parents, if all he does with the picture is take it home and jerk off, there’s no harm being done. He isn’t nearly as much of a threat to anyone as an actual rapist, and shouldn’t be treated as such.
And that’s the problem with talking about “sex offenders” as a group - you get the real sickos mixed up with harmless perverts and horny teenagers.
Right. I am not saying that “Mr Pervert” isn’t a minor criminal- but he is hardly a “dangerous sex offender”.
(Italics are mine)
Isn’t it illegal to “keep an eye” on people who haven’t done anything wrong yet?
Do you mean keep an eye on those we think might progress from whacking off to little Suzy’s picture to making a garb at little Suzy herself? Or someone who reminds him of little Suzy?
How would we know who will be content with fantasy and who will take it to another level?
That would be “making a grab at little Suzy.”
Haven’t you ever had a sexual fantasy that you’ve never acted upon? If you fantasize about the latest hot Hollywood stud, does that mean you’re a risk to movie stars?
Self-control plays a large part in this. Most people have it.
Right. Unless you are a pedophile driven by compulsion rather than rational thought.
My question about Dr. Deth’s post still stands.
PS- I am afraid we may have a similar story reported here in SoCal soon. In the first case affected by a 1996 sex offender law, San Bernardino county officials are getting ready to release a serial sex offender into the community. From the news reports, this man was convicted of raping two children while still a juvenile himself, then convicted of raping two women when he was 22, and then convicted of molestation in his 30’s. Not only is he getting out, but the time limit on his parole has actually expired, so when he is released he will be under no surrveilance of any kind.
Can this be a good idea?
Already- “Mr Pervert” is a criminal- with prison time & all. And is also a registerd sex offender. So- lets keep him a criminal, but with no prison time, and not have him cluttering the database of 'register sex offenders". But since he’d be a convicted criminal, yes, we CAN keep an eye on him.
I didn’t say donothing with the minor & more or less “harmless” 'sex offenders". I said lets take a lot of the resources we waste on them, and spend it on those who are truely dangerous.
Wrong thinking leads to wrong (behavior) actions. This applies to so called mental ilness as well. This is not to say that all so called mental illnesses are not real but the majority are simply role playing so that all the participants, psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, and patient can carry on ad infinitum and never arrive at a cure.
There are a few genuine cases of physicalogical malfunctions in the brain but most are simply ingrained wrong thought processes.
See: The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct by Thomas S. Szasz (Author) There are other titles by the same author.