Once again, it is simply false that “if you’re abused as a child you grow up to abuse other children”. If you do abuse children, the odds are good that you were abused. THIS IS NOT THE SAME as saying that if you were abused, the odds are good that you will abuse.
Equivalence aside, do you actually have a cite that this is the case?
What do you want me to cite, that being sexually abused does not make it LIKELY that an innocent little child victim will grow up to molest children? Do you honestly have trouble believing that? Since citing a negative is difficult, I’d like to see evidence for the proposition.
Depends on your definition of “likely,” but to answer both your questions, in general: yes.
Nevermind. I’m leaving this discussion now. Most people in it have acknowledged that they understand that there’s no reality-based need to tell little boys who are abused that they might as well kill themselves now because they’re inevitable pedophiles.
So, if you ask for cites it’s all cool and dandy, but if someone else requests opposing cites, you flounce off in a huff? Guess I’m not really surprised, considering.
The photograph of a naked young girl involves harm to the girl who was photographed. But what about stories, or drawings? If no children were involved in any way, that it’s just the imagination of the writer or artist, what’s the hard? I’d believe that free access to stories of sex with children or drawings of the same would provide a pressure relief for the pedophile. That would seem to be a perfect example of a person having sexual desire towards children but not acting on it.
A fairly famous example of an ethical pedophile is Robert Crumb’s brother Charles. His first sexual urges were towards the actor Robert Driscoll in the film Treasure Island. It became the focus of his play, dressing up as Long John Silver and of his artwork, creating innumerable amateur comic books about Treasure Island. But he never acted on any of his urges, and after high school he never left home to avoid temptation. Eventually Charles committed suicide.
If he had been born 30 years later, he’d be writing out his fantasies or drawing pictures and posting them on newsgroups. But the public has decided that even thinking about some things is worthy of punishment. A pathetic loser in the UK named Darryn Walker was arrested for writing a story about torturing, raping and killing the girl group Girls Aloud. I have no desire to read his little literary effort, but from what I gather it’s roughly the same level of violence as one of the Saw or Hostel series, with sex.
I have no doubt that there are far more pedophiles that have never touched a child than ones that have. I would hope that they continue to have an outlet for their desires with stories and artwork.
In Texas, that would not be the case. And I believe most states have similar wording in their penal code.
Sec.21.11(b) says:
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the actor:
(1)was not more than three years older than the victim
and of the opposite sex;
(2)did not use duress, force, or a threat against the
victim at the time of the offense; and
(3)at the time of the offense:
(A)was not required under Chapter 62, Code of
Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or
(B)was not a person who under Chapter 62 had a
reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this
section.
Yeah, in homophobic Texas, only gay teen lovers are sex offenders. :rolleyes:
Well, my understanding is that if you’re abused, the odds are much higher that you’ll become an abuser compared ot the baseline population. This does not make it “likely” in the sense of “probable”. The odds might still be very very low. It just means being abused makes you MORE LIKELY to be an abuser.
The quick n’ dirty version of how I think this happens.
- Child A suffers sexual abuse at an early age.
- Child A fixates on adult sexuality as a Bad Thing.
- This fixation lies dormant until puberty.
- Puberty strikes, and sexual energy begins building up, but the aversion to adult sexuality formed earlier is so strong, it keeps Child A from forming proper sexual imprinting of any sort.
- The sexual energy flows to the one place left for it : childhood sexualty.
I offer as support for my theory the fact that molesters who were themselves molested tend to look for children who are around the same age as they were when they were first molested.
No, I don’t have cites for that. I have a mild flu, you’re lucky if any of this makes sense through the Theraflu haze. 
IMO, you are stretching it more than a bit- by US definitions, I’m into child porn (I have seen porn movies with Traci Lords and various Danish 17-year olds in them). Doesn’t make me a paed.
Think of it this way.
Far more girls than boys get molested. However, the incidence of pedophilia is much lower among women than men (leaving aside teachers who boink their students, which IMHO isn’t really pedophilia anyway.)
Also, the typical child molester victimizes dozens, if not hundreds, of children during their lifetime (if you assume what the studies say are true.) If every one of those children became a pedophile themselves, pretty soon the entire planet would be populated by pedophiles. Which clearly isn’t the case.
We purged the board of known paedophiles in a quite well-known incident. No need for the tracking software - the boards have their own.
As to cites about chain of causation: the US government seems to think the jury is still out:
Until they equalised the ages of consent, homophobic Britain had a similar stance - if two 17 year old gay guys had sex then under the terms of the law BOTH of them should have been prosecuted. Fortunately legislation was passed in 2003 that equalised pretty much all sex laws so that being gay was no longer a factor.
Now now, I never said every pedophile victim becomes one themselves. In fact I said nearly the opposite. I said that the incidence of pedophilia was still quite low in the victims, but higher than the baseline incident in the population as a whole. The victims are more likely to molest. Not guaranteed, just more likely.
As for female pedophiles, we have no idea what the actual incidence rate is, we only know about what gets reported. Women often have far more unsupervised contact with minors than men, on average, and male victims of abuse are less likely to report it in general. There might well be a lot of active female pedophiles out there who still enjoy the protection of a society that prefers to think that sort of thing never happens.
Even if they’re cousins? 
It’s possible that after the Lawrence ruling that particular provision may be moot.
Hey! Where were these female teachers that like to have sex with young boys when I was a teenager? I would have NEVER ratted one out to my parents or the cops. Of course, back in my days my Dad would have just said “What the fuck are you complaing about boy? Your getting some pussy aren’t you?”
Oh oh! Here we go again. Stucky, you’re rather new, so you may not know what a can of worms is always opened when that gets brought up. 
Here’s a scenario I’ve always wondered about: Let’s say you’re in a state where the legal age of consent is 17. You are 16, and your girlfriend is also 16. You two have been having sex for at least a year. You are three days older than she is, so when you turn 17, she’s still 16 for three more days. Are you now a child molester if you fail to abstain for those three days?
I think in most modern systems no, because statutory rape doesn’t occur if the older person is themselves below a certain age and/or within a certain number of years as the younger person. Age of consent laws are there to protect a youth being exploited by an adult, not to stop two youths doing what comes pretty naturally (although it’s not exactly encouraged).