A lot of “I think” and “I read” going on here. Perhaps this could be moved to IMHO while its still young?
The reason why the jury never bought this is that there is copious amounts of free porn on the internet now. Just do a reddit site search for NSFW and you’ll find it. And that’s not even skin deep.
That being said I think people should have a safe avenue for treatment assuming no criminal activity has transpired. And, I say this as someone who has a five year old. If someone is unable to control them selves from criminal activity then there are additional issues at hand and they belong in a far away place.
From what I’ve read in the news - there are those attracted to young boys, and those attracted to young girls. Generally, there are very few you read about who are equal-opportunity.
This is what I found so odd about the Woody Allen case. When Mia Farrow’s accusations about him molesting her daughter did not stick, she tried to drag in accusations that he also abused the son.
I suppose those who kidnap and abuse and then murder is a different subset; whether this is a predilection, or simple expediency - to avoid identification - it needs to be pointed out that the same pattern occurs in some men who kidnap and rape adult women. I’m guessing to some extent there’s a dominance/sadism component.
Those who are not in the kidnap-kill modus operandi are logically more likely to molest children known to them since it’s a lot harder (I have to assume) to do anything with total strangers met in public places.
Yeah, it’s really just about accessibility. The victims are nothing special. Just available.
The RadioLab program touched on this issue in another way. The basic point of this episode is that we view guilt and innocence differently depending upon whether the person committing the crime has an organic defect. Such as a brain tumor in a critical area preventing one from distinguishing right and wrong. And we’re talking organic brain syndromes (hardware problems), not psychology (software problems) here.
But technology and knowledge are advancing all the time. Today we might identify abnormalities that were unknown or undetectable 20 years ago. We are likely to do better in the next 10-20 years.
You and I might commit the same crime for the same reason, the same organic brain syndrome(OBS). Because I committed my crime 10-20 years after you did, my OBS may be identified, while yours may not. They were trying to wrap their brains around some of the implications.
Funny- here in the US, many states are passing laws that forbid psychiatrists from trying to change people’s sexual orientations, which we all know are set in stone and CAN’T be altered.
And you know, in ancient Greece, men having sex with boys was considered normal and healthy. And underage bonobos engage in sex play with older apes often.
End pedophilephobia!
Do you understand that children can’t consent to sex, and adult men can?
I don’t think you do.
[QUOTE=Blue Blistering Barnacle]
You and I might commit the same crime for the same reason, the same organic brain syndrome(OBS). Because I committed my crime 10-20 years after you did, my OBS may be identified, while yours may not. They were trying to wrap their brains around some of the implications.
[/QUOTE]
This is why I love Radiolab.
As for you… I know a song about you.
Since this IS a part of a large subject area where science has not yet provided hard and certain answers, I only want to add one suggestion.
That is, that as with many things, I suspect, the “genetic predisposition” and the “caused by problematic upbringing” ideas, may well be one and the same. When a child is raised by a biologically defective parent, in a manner which constitutes abuse, until the biological causes can be identified with certainty, there’s no way to know that the reason for the child to abuse others, was or wasn’t caused by genetic inheritance. They may have suffered abuse in their own childhood, because the parent was biologically defective, and both passed that on via bad behavior (abuse) AND bad genetics.
Let’s be clear: only a small minority of abused children go on to abuse others. But there is a correlation between childhood abuse and pedophilia, in that pedophiles have a disproportionately higher likelihood of having been abused themselves, relative to the general population.
One of my own theories is that they have this physiological predisposition toward abusing children, and then their childhood experience serves to further normalize the behavior. ‘‘Well, it happened to me, so it can’t be that big a deal.’’ We can see this phenomenon for other things, too – someone with a predisposition toward violence having violence normalized in their household is more likely to be violent. As you say, it can even become a cycle that feeds itself, genetics begets violence begets violent environment begets more genetics and more violent environment. I think for behaviors as aberrant as molesting children, both factors have to be in play.
No. Absolutely Not.
While Allen’s custody suit claimed Farrow had made false claims that he had sexually molested their biological son Satchel, Mia stated in court and in her memoir “Satchel was not sexually abused, and that claim was never made.”
The actual reason the jury never bought it is because there was no jury. Fogle pleaded guilty almost immediately.
This is all very interesting. Lately, it seems like every other day there’s a story in the news about a teacher being arrested for having a sexual relationship with a student. Recently, it’s been a lot of female teacher/male student but it goes both ways. Anyway, many of these teachers have been teaching for years. My question is why does this happen all of a sudden? Someone’s been working with kids of that age for maybe 10 years, there’s no history of abuse and then all of a sudden this. Why?
They finally get caught. That’s what happens.
Important note: I am using the term synesthesia here. But I’m only using it for illustrative purposes. I am NOT implying anything about synesthesiacs otherwise.
Anyway … synesthesia is one example of a brain condition where things seemingly unrelated to some people (such as numbers and colors) can be linked inside a person’s brain. There have been several threads about this which I find interesting. But as a non-synesthesiac I cannot imagine the experience.
It might be that in conditions such as pedophilia, in some cases, there’s a similar linkage between sexual urge and things not generally perceived as sexual, e.g., children.
As the article on synesthesia says: causes are under debate, even genetics is uncertain.
Given that synesthesia is a socially acceptable condition (I hope) that can be routinely studied in the lab, trying to ascertain the origins of pedophilia is going to be far, far tougher.
Hmm… Apparently, though, the original claim of Woody molesting their daughter was a videotape Q&A session of her by her mother, with frequent start-stops. It just screamed “coaching”. She then took it to her lawyer a few days later and asked if it could be used to leverage the custody battle.
One theory I read about that - women with low self-esteem. they were always in the “out” crowd when in high school. Suddenly they find themselves at the top of the desirability pack by simply having their own private home with no parents, a car, money… So they try to compensate for what they missed in high school by going after the hot young guy like the ones who ignored them in high school.
I don’t know that I’ve ever read about a woman wanting to molest young boys (or girls) the way male pedophiles do. I’m sure there are a few cases, but they are rare.
back in the dark ages of “psychiatry” there were all sorts of ridiculous suggestions what cause homosexuality such as domineering mother, absent father, etc. However, many gay men have said that they always knew they were attracted to men - apparently it’s nothing to do with nurture. I suspect the same will be found with pedophilia attraction - it’s the way their brain is wired.
(However, how people express their love probably has much to do with nurture - hot or cold, expressive or not, jealousy and violence, possessiveness or over-dependent… etc.)
I think the better route would be comparing pedophilia with kleptomania.
As soon as someone’s property is taken without consent, we rush to fine the thief or jail him or whatever. But, if he wants to say “no, see, it was my kleptomania, which I’d sure like to get rid of; do you know where I can find a trained professional who can help me with that?” – well, we’re amenable. Heck, we’d like folks to seek help for that before they take a guy’s property without consent.
Obviously none of this applies to people who take stuff with consent. If somebody (a) has as strong a desire as any kleptomaniac’s to take stuff, but (b) only ever takes stuff after getting permission from a consenting adult – well, we don’t give a crap on anyone’s behalf: he’s not going to raise that defense upon facing jail time, and we’re not going to recommend that he seek help before he acts on that desire.
That’s the moral magic of consent, innit? It’s okay for you to borrow my car if I say it’s okay to borrow my car – but it’s not okay for you to skip the key part, there. And it’s okay for us to trade jabs in a boxing match – but it’s not okay for you to sneak up behind me on the street and punch the back of my head. And so on.
See also: sex.
With no intention to get things off track, I have another suggestion for this, as well as any similar “nature versus nurture” kind of concern.
It is the recognition that a lot of genetics is NOT AT ALL straightforward, in a simple "if this, then this" kind of way. We still have a great deal to learn. But it is already at least suspected, that it is an INTERACTION of a two or more separate genes, which "cause" things, such as hair color, eye color, and so on. We are fairly certain that EVERYTHING about a being is a result of their genes, but we are also learning that very few things are the result of a single identifiable one.
I am thinking as well, of some direct experiences I have had, observing myself and my own decision making, and comparing it to others. What I’m referring to with this, is that many decisions I and others make, are sort of indirect, relying on things that we FEEL, as much as on things that we logically deduce. Since what we FEEL is very much dependent on chemistry (hence the ability of drugs to influence emotions), it makes sense that some people’s genetics could cause them to physiologically reason differently than others. Some people are more instantly reactive than others, for chemical (i.e. physiological) reasons.
Basically, those observations lead me to be reasonably certain that things like sexual orientation and responsiveness, are likely the result of hundreds, or even thousands of genes. The reason why we haven’t, and are unlikely to discover a single gene responsible for things like homosexuality, or hypersexuality, or pedophilia, or heterosexuality for that matter, isn’t because it’s “a personal lifestyle decision.” It’s because such things are a COLLECTIVE result of many many physiological factors.
Flyer posted this quote:
Now I really cannot contribute any facts to this discussion, I would just like to point out that it is at least possible that the person in question was always a pedophile internally, but had enough self control to have never acted on it before. This could explain all those cases in which a brain trauma led to pedophilia or other sexual hangups.
I recall reading about one sad case of a man who told his parole board not to let him out unless they castrated him, which he was willing to allow in order to get out. But if he was out otherwise he just could not help himself from reoffending. The board refused.
AFAIK there is no evidence of any inheritance in homosexuality, another instance of a misdirected sex drive. (not equating the two, just pointing out the common situation of misdirection). It can and does apparently happen at random and is part of the brain pattern. Presumably it’s developmental randomness?
I don’t know. In the program I listened to, he didn’t mention any enforcement method.