So what do you propose? Abstinence is pretty much a must, at least as regards to sex with kids.
TLDR Summary: People aren’t necessarily responsible for their desires, and we should be helping those with dangerous desires rather than anathematizing them. However, hatred of anything pedo is instinctive, in many of us. We need to recognize that and try to educate people that it’s the behavior, not the desire, that’s evil. Of course, educating people to ignore their instincts is a very difficult task. But just as society won’t make progress against child sex abuse without understanding pedophilia, we won’t move toward the goal of understanding pedophelia without understanding the resistance to it. Meanwhile, virtual reality might be a useful tool, but it could also cause more harm than good, and it needs to be studied.
I think it goes far deeper than mere Puritanism. More below.
Good article, and I agree with Cantor.
This is true, and I think it’s also important to understand why this is true.
I believe it’s connected with a deep-seated instinct to PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. Sure, there’s a Puritan component that amplifies this, as well.
Years ago I participated in an online virtual world. Virtual worlds are great experiments in sociology and economics, and an easy way to meet people living in different places and in very different circumstances. Not surprisingly, sex factored big in the VR world, including an astonishing array of kinks. In general, toleration for kinks was high, even really sicko ones like “Dolcette” which involves cooking and eating the object of one’s desire (or something like that). Pedo was there too, with people voluntarily playing all roles. Then it was banned by the provider, to avoid being subject to the laws of various countries. For that reason, it became a topic of general discussion. The intensity of hatred of anything resembling child abuse (even when it involved no actual children) was notable, and it was a very popular (maybe even majority) opinion.
My gut-level reaction to pedo in any form is “IT’S EVIL! KILL IT!” I know I have a lot of company in that. Of course, I don’t assume my instinctual reaction is the correct one. I realized that people aren’t (always) responsible for their proclivities*, but rather, are responsible for their actions. So, I try not to judge people based on their desires.
I’m curious whether engaging in pedo sex in virtual reality would provide a safe outlet, or increase the likelihood of abuse. I suspect that for most pedophiles, it would be the former, but for some, it would be the latter. It would be interesting to see a scholarly, scientific approach to the question and how to answer whether allowing it would be better or worse for society. When the subject was discussed, people made strong claims in both directions, but nobody could find any facts to back up their assertions.
I suspect it would be very difficult to study in a meaningful way, but a lot of things I think would be very difficult to study get studied and studied well all the time. Getting funding might be the harder part!
- People CAN be responsible for their proclivities. For example, there’s the tale of two wolves, and I have no doubt that this is significant. But it doesn’t mean that people are always and fully responsible for their proclivities. For example, regarding pedo, most of us don’t have or need any wolves. No doubt there are people with both wolves, but it’s not hard to feed the right one. But I’m sure there are people for whom one wolf is a monster and the other is a mouse, despite feeding the mouse, and who struggle to act responsibly. I think those people deserve our sympathy and support.
In one of the prior threads with someone admitting sexual attraction towards the underage he also said he was attracted to adult women as well - so in his case not complete abstinence but rather doing everything possible to focus his sexual expression on appropriate and legal outlets even if the illegal urges never completely go away. Which strikes me as much better than simply locking such a person up and throwing away the key.
But yes, there probably are people who are ONLY sexually attracted to subjects far too young, and that’s a problem. Such a person would have to remain celibate for life… which is difficult, as numerous lapsed vows of chastity throughout history have shown. Whatever we can do to help such a person remain celibate would be a good thing… but we have no idea what actually would and wouldn’t work, do we? Drugs? Counseling? A combination? No one knows.
Reporters can be expected to assess risk of future harm, even absent known or suspected past instances. Training and knowledge of such risk varies wildly across the range of mandatory reporters.
What the hell does this mean? Are there cites? Just what kind of sexual activity happens elsewhere but not here? And I dont mean ISIS rape culture.
I don’t disagree, but it’s not a cure. Nor is any variation like “self control.” Having powerful urges to have inappropriate sex, drink, use drugs, gamble, whatever - sure, you can take the pious Xian/conservative notion that “enough self control” is all that’s needed, but only to give therapists, behaviorists, cops, courts and most any person with a little RL experience something to giggle about.
Intervention to blunt or redirect the urges is essential. Simply walking around mumbling I Won’t I Won’t I Won’t… Won’t.
Mandatory reporters are also human, and can have their own biases and prejudices. I have no doubt there are counselors out there who also have a KILL IT WITH FIRE!!! attitude.
Counciling will do absolutely no good when the cause is an inability to control impulse. Its silly to talk about treatment when there is no known cause of this. Its also likely that the there isnt one cause. I postulate in some offenders its about power and the ability to impose themselves on their victims in a way another adult wouldnt allow.
There is one venue where a pedophile can safely discuss their urges without fear of disclosure: The Catholic Church. Im not trying to be ironic here but priests arent allowed to break confession. And the Church probably has more experience in this therapy than anyone else.
Gamble all you want. Drink as much as you care to. Use whatever drugs you desire. I’m fine with your choices up to the point where they involve abuse of a child. At that point, there is no punishment I feel would be inappropriately harsh. So yes, self control, what’s wrong with it? You can’t fuck kids. Period.
How comfortable would you feel having a person with this issue living in your neighborhood in close proximity to your children? NY state has a gun registry. Why shouldnt there be a pedophile registry so at the least parents can do whatever possible to protect their kids?
I believe I read somewhere that Jarhead is Jewish. Are Jews prohibited from going to confession?
Well… if the person in question has committed no crime, has never ACTED on those impulses, has never harmed or touched a child… would you still consider them a dangerous criminal?
The fact is there ARE ALREADY such people living in your neighborhood.
I’ve never met a Catholic priest who would refuse to listen to, counsel, and comfort a sinner of any stripe, but I don’t know if the “seal of confession” would apply between a Catholic priest and a non-Catholic.
Dangerous? Yes. A criminal? No.
I’m not Catholic so I can’t offer an opinion on the confession question.
What on earth does that have to do with my posts on this thread?
I think pedophilia is a disease that needs treatment for both the well-being of the sufferer and those around him - family, neighbors and above all any children he may ever encounter. The point of this thread is that it’s dangerous for p’s to even admit their feelings to a therapist or other “helping” figure; the loathing for pedophilia is so strong that such a person is likely to end up as a registered sex offender, and otherwise damaged, without having ever so much as patted a child on the head.
Effective intervention and treatment is essential - and, from all accounts, difficult and risky to get.
My comments to kayaker is that “abstinence” and “self control” are somewhere between ineffectual and laughable in control of addictive or illegal behavior. How you or anyone can read that as supportive of p’s is mystifying.
Since there is no known cause there is no known treatment. And you are in denial. Abstinence is the only future for a pedophile. And how do you know its disease? Is there a pathogen at its root? Its more likely a condition.
You’re right. Just shoot them and be done with it.
Why do you think that a report of “suspected” child abuse would trigger the government to provide any kind of assistance to the suspect? IMHO the government is far more likely to interview/question/follow the suspect and hope for a confession or a criminal act, than to contect the suspect and offer therapy or subsidize some form of therapy.
Or institutionalize active ones. The recidivism rate is high and society should err on the side of safety for kids.
Not necessarily true. Throughout history there have been many diseases and conditions that could be treated even without knowing the cause.
If it weren’t so dangerous to the individual to admit to having such desires we could, perhaps, study people with these desires and attempt to figure out the differences between those who act on such impulse and those who do not and perhaps find some way to help people not commit crimes. You seem to just want to throw your hands up in the air and declare the matter hopeless.
So… what’s wrong with trying to find ways to make keeping abstinent easier?
I mean, hell, we do that for alcoholics and drugs addicts by various methods. None of them perfect, true, but there’s no denying that many people with those problems manage to keep their problem(s) under control with help.
What does that matter? I hope we can find a way to prevent such abuse rather than simply waiting for it to happen and punishing after the fact, after the harm has been done. And I’d like to be able to do it without locking people up for having bad *thoughts *rather than committing bad acts.