And that is exactly why we need impartial, sound, credible studies. If we don’t know the actual facts we can’t make good decisions or good laws.
This topic has been brought up for discussion in the past, among people I know. The amount of moral indignation surrounding it always amazes me, and it always ends up in the same place… with someone accusing someone else of defending pedophiles. You could take otherwise rational and logical people known for their ability to take an objective view and start conversations about this topic, and still end up with anger and name calling.
I am not sure you could ever separate out the topic itself from the anger about it long enough to get anything done. I appreciate the discussion here, though, because I believe it is an important, necessary, and sad thing that needs to be discussed.
I once saw a story about a company in Japan, I believe, who was selling sex dolls that looked like children. Of course there was extreme outrage about it (mostly from western areas, iirc), and the production was stopped. It made me stop and consider this very subject, though, and the viability of something like that as a potential treatment. Was it just something in poor taste and truly disgusting, as many people argued, or could something like that actually be used to help someone curb urges? I am not sure what I believe, to be honest.
True
Bullshit. Unless you have a cite for anyone saying that?
While I did not encounter that exact attitude in that thread I have encountered it elsewhere twice - once at a SF Con and once elsewhere on the internet. It’s more common to have someone say the book with the child molesting in it be destroyed.
I’m a bit baffled by some of the reasoning in that camp - what, if she hadn’t been a child molester her novel would be OK, then? It’s OK to write the villain as a child rapist if you aren’t a child molester, but not OK if you are? Why would the plot be more or less objectionable regardless of the real life actions of the author? It’s the same series of scenes either way, isn’t it? It’s not like it was explicit or a how-to manual. It’s clear what happens to Danilo but we aren’t given blow-by-blow descriptions. I’ve read news reports that were more explicit on details regarding abuse of children.
There is also the discouragement of people encountering her work for the first time, people saying don’t read anything by her, etc. Me, I’d rather people be allowed to make their own decisions. MZB is hardly the only writer/artist/musician who is a loathsome person in her private life, if we eliminated the work of everyone who is real life scum there wouldn’t be much left to read/watch/listen to.
You also get situations like with The Cosby Show - sure, take it off the air to “punish” Cosby, but then everyone else in the cast, who did nothing wrong, suffers because they are no longer getting income from the re-runs. Income they might well need more than the more prominent headliner Cosby. Not really fair to those folks, is it?
I believe that the German program is Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (Dark Field). It is one of the few programs available for non-sentenced pedophiles that purports to offer full confidentiality. It looks like that they offer help for both non-offending pedophiles as well as uncaught child molesters, the last group via Germany’s lack of mandatory child abuse reporting requirements.
This is a big problem in the research. One of the biggest barriers is the fact that setting up control groups is difficult to do - what are you going to do, knowingly and intentionally leave a few pedophiles un-treated and run the risk that they might molest someone? Now you’re potentially getting sued by a victim for not treating the offender when you had the chance, and you’re also dealing with the moral guilt of letting someone get sexually abused who might not have had to be if you had only done a little treatment. Ethically, it’s better to just not inquire into the pedophile-ness of research subjects.
Right. If someone admits to a therapist that they are angry with their spouse, we don’t immediately arrest them for Domestic Violence. If someone admits a problem with coveting their neighbor’s goods, we don’t immediately file Theft charges.
Again, point us to some actual cases where someone suffered legal consequences for sharing generalized feelings of illegal urges toward children with a therapist. What is the evidence that this is actually a problem?
I read about a guy, admittedly an already branded sex offender who had been released or paroled, writing up his urges as a form of stories in a notebook he had on his coffee table or something. The police, probably checking up on him, decided to read the notebook and they arrested him for his depraved stories. This case made national news because while the guy might have been a sex offender, it seemed like a clear violation of freedom to arrest someone for writing his private thoughts down onto a piece of paper. It made national news and was a slashdot article a decade ago. That should be enough for you to find it.
There are two issues here:
- Actual risk that someone could be locked up for admitting to a therapist they had pedophillic urges
and
- Perception that such a risk exists that discourages non-offenders at risk from seeking help before they commit a crime.
An additional problem is, given confidentiality laws in this country, if someone IS locked for up being a threat to others (which is what this would fall under) it might not be publicly accessible knowledge WHY that person was locked up.
Do you have a cite for this? That people are “locked” up without public knowledge as to the reason?
Is this an admission that there is no ACTUAL risk, but only perceived risk?
I don’t know - I have certainly heard OF that fear but I have not researched it myself. I certainly don’t have any solid information on this, nor do I know of anyone who does.
I’m sorry - did you think I was asserting something rather than asking a question or describing something rumored but not proven? I’m not Snopes you know, not every statement I make is painstakingly research or meant to be an absolute declaration of faact. When I have cites I provide them.
If you want to sponsor some solid research in to the various issues mentioned in thread maybe we’ll get somewhere but until somebody does (which I can’t, barely having enough to support myself) NOBODY is going to have a “cite” or solid facts of any sort. That is another complaint I’ve heard and even expressed myself - we don’t know the facts here. Nobody does.
If, by the way, YOU happen to have some solid facts/cites/stats on any of the above I’d be happy to hear about them. Definitely a situation where I could handle being proven wrong about something.
As for being “locked up” without reason being disclosed - yeah. I had a roommate in college who was involuntarily committed to a psych ward. Nobody outside her family knew anything about why - her family did let me visit her and she told me herself, but the hospital wouldn’t release any more information than “she is a patient at this facility”. No further information released. That was even before HIPAA, these days I imagine they’d be even more tight-lipped. (If you must know - self harm via self-inflicted 3rd degree burns and suspected suicide attempt. I’m happy to say she did, eventually, get better although she’s still badly scarred and always will be.)
Fact is, the public does not have any right to know a person’s medical history, and involuntary commitment would be part of that. If the police are involved due to there being a crime either committed or suspected that might be public, but yes, you most certainly could be locked up as a threat to yourself or others without any public announcement. They’d inform your kin, but your kin might not pass that information on to anyone, they aren’t obligated to do so. What, you didn’t know that?
If a pedophile perceives himself to be a risk such that he feels compelled to ask for help, it seems likely to me that there is an actual risk.
I’m not talking about a risk that a crime will ultimately be committed, but the risk that speaking to a therapist about thoughts and feeling that have not been carried out nor planned as future actions.
Aren’t facts the Raison d’être of General Questions?
Acting on pedophilia is a crime in every U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, it would be public knowledge as to why someone was locked up. Do you have evidence otherwise?
Funny, I thought asking questions was the raison d’être of General Questions. But let’s face it - if I stated the sky was blue you’d ask me for a cite then accuse me of moving the goalposts or falsehoods when I later qualified it with “of Earth, in the daytime, with no inclement weather”. Don’t you get tired of that game? I certainly do.
Right…except we’re talking about someone who has URGES and THOUGHTS but has not, actually, committed a crime. Are there some places where you could get locked up for admitting a fantasy involving pedophilia? I don’t know. Apparently there is some sort of concern about that. If someone has been or is or will be locked up for THOUGHTS rather than ACTIONS in the US we the public might not have any way of knowing that.
But hey, feel free to prove me wrong and demonstrate that that is not happening nor will happen in the future. I’m OK with that.
You suggested that it was happening. Cite?
How can anyone demonstrate what will happen in the future?
Again, you’re reading far too much into my posts. I have no idea why you insist on doing that.
“Suggesting” is not the same as “declaring”. It’s OK to ask questions. It’s OK to discuss hypotheticals.
I have repeatedly stated I do not know. Why don’t you read that part of my posts along with the portions you fixate on?
You are correct - you can’t predict the future with any accuracy. Likewise, NO ONE case give a “cite” on a topic that is not researched largely due to a lack of funding for a topic that causes mass squick.
Please move on, I’m not going to indulge your desire to turn this one item into a multi-page volley over the net. I’ve said my piece, if you insist on continuing to dwell on this you’ll be doing it on your own. I’ll be happy to discuss other topics in this thread but there’s no point in beating this deceased equine further.
Luckily, there are other forums to post suggestions and hypotheticals. This isn’t it.
:rolleyes:
So, when you said
you knew it to not be true? :dubious:
Or you just confused a very specific thread here, one you heavily participated in, for a nebulous “elsewhere on the internet”? :dubious:
Or mixed up an IRL convention for that thread?:dubious: