What is a pedophile?

[Bettina]

Seconded.

 

I am reopening this thread simply because I don't see any reason for it to be closed at this time.

 

This thread does not need "It's just wrong" comments. Please refer to the questions posed in the original post if you forget what the discussion is:

 

I realise Corel asked for people's views on pedophilia' date=' but this [i']is[/i] a science site and we pride ourselves on being a forum for rational discourse rather than a house of clucking hens.

 

Personally I see having several pedophiles posting in a thread about the nature of pedophilia to be a distinct advantage, rather than an opportunity to express distaste. I'd suggest that those who do not like the content of the thread simply stop reading it.

 

As one of the "clucking hens"........I answer yes to all of the three questions. And to "simply stop reading it" would imply that I either don't care or just condone this sort of trash.

 

Here is a link for all those who find pedophiles/predators/sex offenders lower than dirt. Maybe they are fooling most of the people here, but there not fooling me.

 

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/3.html?sect=19

 

An interesting note from that link....

 

The pedophile. He makes frequent references to children in exalted or exaggerated terms such as “pure,” “innocent,” ”God sent,” “blissful”

and other descriptive labels that seem inappropriate and excessive. Sounds like some familiar posts.

 

Here is another link that doesn't distinguish between pedophiles and sex offenders. These are police that KNOW.

http://kenoshapolice.com/sex.htm

 

And here is another link to show that the pedohiles on this board are wrong in how they see themselves.

http://www.mako.org.au/whoabuseschild.html

 

And this statement from the above link makes me nervous about why this thread didn't remain closed.

"Paedophiles are not necessarily easy to pick out. They may have the appearance of respectability and may hold positions of authority."

 

 

Remember Elizabeth Smart?.....she was loved too.

Just to make it clear, I dislike all you molesters and if I could get your IP addresses I would report everyone of you. You are the people that hang around schools, malls, and playgrounds checking out your prey...and now you may have found a new home here.

 

And no....this is not an emotional response. It is a concerned one, and I find it uneasy that other posters who dislike this sort of stuff are remaining in the background. I'm not going away unless forced.

 

Bettina

[Dak]

hair, fibre and DNA evidense will dissapear from a living body which changes its cloths and bathes in just a matter of days, whereas it can persist in corpses for years (in the case of hair and fibre) and the police are usually a bit more vigilant in caching the perpotrator. so it really isnt safer to kill than just leave, espesially if the paedophile has no reason to expect the child to tell anyone.

[Sayonara]

Just to make it clear, I dislike all you molesters and if I could get your IP addresses I would report everyone of you.

Report them for what? Having an internet connection?

 

Seriously, I'd bet they'd all give me permission to pass on their IP addresses just to see exactly what you do with them, and which agencies' time you waste in the process.

 

 

And no....this is not an emotional response. It is a concerned one, and I find it uneasy that other posters who dislike this sort of stuff are remaining in the background.

You don't think concern is an emotional response? You certainly seem worked up to me. There is nothing wrong or abnormal about having these reactions, obviously, but this is not the appropriate place to express them.

 

 

I'm not going away unless forced.

You don't need to go away - you need to change your approach to this topic. If you do not after being told twice you will receive warning points, which is not really something I want to do on the basis of someone having emotions, so please don't make me.

[Dak]

Bettina, let me put it this way: assume that the bible is absolutely correct, and that 'men who lay with men and do the unclean act' or however is worded is the truth, ie homosexuality is evil.

 

immagine a homosexual. he is attracted to men. however he has never had sex with a man.

 

biblicly speaking, is he evil? will he be going to hell?

 

ie are actions more inportant than thoughts, or are thoughts more inportant than actions?

[Sayonara]

If memory serves Bettina has some interesting* views on homosexuality too, so possibly not the best example.

 

 

 

* i.e. not really based on terribly practical things.

[Dak]

okeydokey then, in antisipation, id like to withdraw my previouse question and replace it with this one... bettina, was there ever a point, while you were going through puberty, when you felt that you could have ended up gay? or bisexual? or a paedophile? this is a seriouse question and id appreciate a seriouse responce, and i appologise if the question offends you in anyway.

[Sayonara]

Granted I don't know Bettina very well, but I think there's a good chance that will offend her, given her strong feelings on the subject/s.

[ezekiel23]

.

[Dak]

bowing to sayos judgement: bettina, my previouse question was entirely a philosophical question. i am trying to make a point, and will do so based on your answre to my question. i again state that i meant absolutely no offence by the question, hope sinserely that you do not take any offence, and appologise unreservedly if it causes any offense.

[Merle Noir]

of course the majority oppinion could always be based on the results..?

 

i dont know what the protocols in psycology are to prevent bias. i know that they exist' date=' but i cant comment on how good they are. although id like to point out that it was psycologists themselves that desighned the double-blind test which most scientists are required to perform if possible, that explained the plascebo effect and its relevance in scientifical studies involving humans, and spotted alot of other annoying facts that scientist have to take into account in order to get accurate, representitive and unbiased results, so i assume that the anti-bias protocols would be relatively effective in the field of psycology

 

::EDIT::oh and desighning tests to show up a result which then fail to show up that result can be almost as good as desighning a test to show up the opposite result, and i believe (but do not know) that psycologists are alot more inclined than most scientists to publish negative results.[/quote']

 

The study of Pedophilia has a lot of problems. First of all its difficult to find pedophiles to study. You can't just go to your local pedophile hang out and start a study. Many of the studies are thus based on sex offenders which presents a problem that a pedophile must engage in sexual behavior that is prohibited, be caught in some way, and convicted. This means Those that manage to not get caught are not studied. Those that abstain from having sex with minors are also not studied. It also means that those falsely accused and falsely convicted are thrown into the study. Not a very good start even with a double blind study. (Feierman, 1990a; Kilpatrick, 1987; West & Woodhouse, 1990.)

 

When non-sex offended pedophiles are found they are generally in very small numbers. So any study must be based on a very small sample and extrapolated out to the society as a whole. The Internet probably has had an effect on this in making it easier to find pedophiles but you still have a problem that it will only be those willing to participate. This can skew the results by making it non representative of those unwilling to participate.

 

A lot of the research, lacking subjects, simply study the results of several studies and combine them together in an analysis

 

Then once the study begins there are problems of using legal and moral definitions rather then scientific definitions. I've read reports where researchers complain the terminology available is too broad to be meaningful so they propose new scientific definitions. ( Haugaard & Emery, 1989; Jones, 1990; Kilpatrick, 1987; West & Woodhouse, 1990.) Often studies are commissioned not to study pedophilia so much but to justify treatment methods for Sex offenders or to substantiate a proposed law.

 

Most critically is once the findings are complete. Most controversial studies are taken on when a researcher has established his name and is near or even in retirement. The reason is that if your results do not conform to certain expectations you will be crucified. The most extreme example is the Rind report. (Rind et al., 1998) In this case it was Criticized on the US radio by Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Here Criticism of the results lead to a public outcry that eventually resulted in the US government passing resolutions condemning the results. -http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/Research/Rind/Controversy/controversy.html-

 

Now seriously what scientist do you honestly think wants to put their name on the line to risk a study that might not be politically correct. Especially when you run the risk of having your results, not to say the least of your reputation trashed in the political arena. How many scientists do you think want to jump in line to be the next Bruce Rind to be publicly slandered and have their results rejected by government resolutions. People don't want to have their Myths about pedophiles and sexual abuse challenged. If science gets in the way of that myth they have shown a willingness to use whatever means necessary to discredit science in favor of Myth and the unknown.

 

IMO the larger problem is not bias in the studies but rather just a lack of information period. The number of studies is very small the quality is almost always a concern the researchers try as best as possible to over come the problems but the emotions and politics coupled with the secrecy and shame or embarrassment are a big obstacle. Bias can be controlled for but many of these other problems they are difficult if not impossible to control for.

[Callipygous]

i cant read all these posts to get my self up to speed here, but ill just throw in my 2 cents.

 

 

i have to say i find it pretty disgusting that anyone would be attracted to a prepubescent person. however, i applaud people who have such urges but resist them instead of hurting a child.

 

i dont really care what the law says, there is just a certain point with each person before which, such a relationship is severely damaging psychologically. the problem i see is how and where to draw the line. my best friend is 17 and is currently dating a 30 year old. technically this is illegal. but if you had seen them together, or even knew each of them seperately, you would realise there is no abuse or coersion taking place in this relationship. but what if she was 16? would that make the difference between acceptable and not? i would say no, she hasnt changed all that much in the last year. what about 15?

how far does it go before its not a healthy relationship and is instead one person taking advantage of another?

 

for the pedophiles out there... obviously you think that line is very very early. my question is, what determines for you whether its acceptable or not? when is the person too young? is there such a thing as too young? does it matter only whether the person agrees? does it matter what stage of physical or mental developement the person is at?

 

do you think its even possible for a 9 year old to have developed enough emotionally to be making that kind of decision?

[ezekiel23]

Thanks merle that's exactly what I wanted to say, I just didn't know enough about this stuff to say it

[Dak]

IMO the larger problem is not bias in the studies but rather just a lack of information period. The number of studies is very small the quality is almost always a concern the researchers try as best as possible to over come the problems but the emotions and politics coupled with the secrecy and shame or embarrassment are a big obstacle. Bias can be controlled for but many of these other problems they are difficult if not impossible to control for.

are there no studies done that utilise the different contries ages of consent? from my memory, i believe that US = 18, UK = 16, Austria = 14, Brazil = 11. surely that gives enough acess to people who legally and presumably without stigma sleep with a wide age-range of childeren, so wouldnt mind coming forward and being honest?

 

::EDIT:: oh and thinking of that, in line with the original "what is a paedophile" question: what relevense does the local age of consent have? when i was 19 i had a sexual relation ship with a 17 year old. in the UK (where we were) this is fine, in the US this would make me a paedophile. soo... what if it was in the UK but she was american? or what if i was american and she was british. what if we were both british but went on holiday to the US? and do the americans on this forum view that relationship as 'paedophillic' even though it was within the laws of my contry? what if i was ostrean and had had sex with a 14 year old when i was 17 (which would be completely legal). what if i now, as a 23yo, i, a non ostrean, went to ostrea to have sex with a 14 year old. confusing, neh?

[Sayonara]

i have to say i find it pretty disgusting that anyone would be attracted to a prepubescent person.

This reaction is common to you, me, and most of the population.

 

The reason this becomes an emotional issue with people is that they fail to recognise that the distaste is due to chemical responses, and instead ascribe it to nebulous moral notions that nobody has ever defined. "It's just wrong", and so forth.

 

This allows a convenient lapse in memory when it comes to understanding that the lack of those responses removes the reaction of distaste, and therefore removes the major internal barrier to that attraction.

[Merle Noir]

Report them for what? Having an internet connection?

 

Seriously' date=' I'd bet they'd all give me permission to pass on their IP addresses just to see exactly what you do with them, and which agencies' time you waste in the process. [/quote']

 

Actually I considered finding my own IP address to post it but decided might end up being attacked with a bunch of spam or viruses if I posted it.

 

I would bet the Police already have my IP address if not my name and actual address. I do know that a very good pedophile friend in the UK being investigated and was questioned by police about a few contacts... they named those contacts by first and last name. I have no doubt that the only reason my name was not brought up was that I'm outside the UK so they either said not our problem or passed it on to other Authorities.

 

The Police are so over worked because of the hysteria that really and trully giving Bettina our IP addresses would be doing nothing more then wasting the authorities time.

 

This was a comment a pedophile made about asking his sisters husband who works for London Metro Police about fear of downloading what is classified as class 1 Child Pornography in the UK. These same images before you envission the worst are often seen in advertisements and catalogs, that is the degree to which they are legal outside the UK.

 

" (1) The Child Protection Unit at Scotland Yard has had its allocation of funds reduced and is buried beneath mountains of work. There are four officers who spend all day, every day, viewing kiddie porn, keeping a record of faces and places, in the hope of being able to identify children currently “at risk”.

 

(2) So inundated are the police by the amount of material coming their way, that they only interest themselves in cases where they think actual children are being abused here and now for the manufacture and distribution of kiddie pornography.

 

(3) When a new Internet Service Provider was launched in Britain last year, its owners were astonished to discover that, on the very first day, twenty thousand visitors used it in an attempt to find kiddie porn. This gives you some idea of the extent of the problem.

 

(4) Hidden among the kiddie porn web-sites is one run by the police themselves. Visitors are led into the site step by step and when they are on the point of making a purchase, they are told this is a police site, but that no action will be taken against them providing they never visit a kiddie porn site again. They are recommended to seek treatment.

 

(5) Apart from those who used their credit cards in the past to purchase kiddie porn and are part of the ongoing investigation initially launched by the FBI, those who use their credit cards today to make similar purchases may have their details recorded, but are unlikely to have any action taken against them – unless they bring themselves to the attention of the police by their other activities.

 

(6) Finally, I asked what risk there was in downloading pictures of boys in their underpants or swimsuits from a place like The Gallery and the answer was, first of all, laughter, and then this: “The risk is nil. There is zero risk. Haven’t you been listening ? The police are overwhelmed with work and only interested in cases where they suspect actual abuse may be taking place now.” "

 

So you can imagine that if this is the responce to concern over Class 1 Child Porn in the UK, which was partially defined in point 6, what the police are likely to say about an IP address of someone doing absolutely nothing Illegal.

[Bettina]

okeydokey then, in antisipation, id like to withdraw my previouse question and replace it with this one... bettina, was there ever a point, while you were going through puberty, when you felt that you could have ended up gay? or bisexual? or a paedophile? this is a seriouse question and id appreciate a seriouse responce, and i appologise if the question offends you in anyway.

 

No....I like boys. I always liked boys. Kissing a girl would give me the creeps and having sex with them is unthinkable.....

I also see little kids.....as little kids.....thats it. I don't dream at night of having sex with them, and I was not offended at all.

 

Bettina

[Dak]

When a new Internet Service Provider was launched in Britain last year, its owners were astonished to discover that, on the very first day, twenty thousand visitors used it in an attempt to find kiddie porn. This gives you some idea of the extent of the problem.

there are computer viruses that dial up paedo sites, which could account for the high number -- which is of course another sourse of work for the police, sorting out the ips that acess the sites under the instruction of a virus, from the ones that acess them under the instruction of the user. out of interest, what are your views on child internet porn, if i may ask?

[Bettina]

If memory serves Bettina has some interesting* views on homosexuality too' date=' so possibly not the best example.

 

 

 

* i.e. not really based on terribly practical things.[/quote']

 

Geez....

 

I have made myself clear on homosexuality already. I stated that I will never have a problem with ADULT homosexuals living together. In fact I stated they should be given partnership protection by law just as a straight man and women would receive.

 

I DO, however, have a problem with a 35 year old ADULT being sexually attracted to a 7 year old child as stated in post 201.

 

Remove all the gloss from that post and you have "a person of interest" as the police usually call them. I know what people like this are thinking.

 

Bettina

[Merle Noir]

are there no studies done that utilise the different contries ages of consent? from my memory' date=' i believe that US = 18, UK = 16, Austria = 14, Brazil = 11. surely that gives enough acess to people who [i']legally[/i] and presumably without stigma sleep with a wide age-range of childeren, so wouldnt mind coming forward and being honest?

 

Actually the US AoC varies from state to state. Many have 18 as an AoC but the majority are lower. It also depends what kind of relationship your talking about. AoC's very for heterosexual and homosexual relationships. They even can very for Gay Male and Lesbian relationships. With in the US a lot of the AoC are having to be rewritten as a result of a Supreme court ruling a few years ago. BTW Madagascar is where they have the AoC of 21. You can find out pretty much all you want at http://www.ageofconsent.com/

 

There are a lot of studies done around the world. However with relatively few exceptions the AoC limits it to an older teen. That is ephebophilia which is similar but brings in some variables. The reason I like to try to establish what age people are talking about is I tend to assume my own age of attraction range. I once had a long debate with an Ephebophile about sex only to discover he was attracted to older teens and was talking about 15 to 18 yo's. Once I found that out I had to basically say I agree with you totally as I think an AoC of 14 or 15 is about right even though it is above what I am attracted to.

 

However even when it may be legal or blindly accepted even if technically illegal it is still something people keep quiet about. While say a couple in Thailand where the is no AoC for male homosexual relationships may be legal Asian culture generally looks at sex as something to be kept private and quiet. I suspect it is much easier to find samples by asking therapists to refer patients for studies or search out adults that had relationships as a boy or a girl and study that side then head of around the world. Cultural differences may not be important in some aspects but can be a huge factor in other aspects as well.

[Dak]

No....I like boys. I always liked boys. Kissing a girl would give me the creeps and having sex with them is unthinkable.....

I also see little kids.....as little kids.....thats it. I don't dream at night of having sex with them' date=' and I was not offended at all.

 

Bettina[/quote']im glad i didnt offend you.

 

my point is this: if youve always liked boys and never were in the position where you felt that you could become a lesbian/bisexual/paedophile, then you cannot claim to have chosen heterosexuality. in the abscense of any choice other than being strait, you cannot choose to be strait. you had your sexuality thrust upon you, and it happened (and again ill stress, completely independantly of your wishes) to be that you were heterosexual. which is pretty groovy - homosexuality is inconvienient, and paedophillia is from the sounds of it none-to-great a sexual inclanation.

 

but the point im trying to make is that, having not chosen your sexuality, having not in fact having any say in the matter at all, it is purely luck that you yourself are not a paedophile. if the storys are true that child abuse leads to that child growing up to be a paedophile then it is luck that determined that you were not born into a family that contained a paedophilic parent. if it is merely another sexual preferense, then it is luck that determined that you would not have that preferense. as it is true that you did not chose to be heterosexual, it is equaly true to say that you did not chose to not be a paedophile. same as i myself did not chose to not be a paedophile, and from what they have said none of the paedophiles here chose to be paedophiles. which is part of the reason that i personally do not believe that paedophiles* are inherantly evil.

 

so, again offering no offense and appologising in advance if i cause any, what would you do if you had been born a paedophile**? baring in mind that sexuality is not something that most people have the luxury of choosing -- i know of only two people who have been able to choose their sexuality (as opposed to merely ignooring it).

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* ie, people who are sexually attracted to childeren, not the raping-murdering-paedophiles. they, i do consider evil.

**see above. i am using paedophile here to mean someone who is sexually attracted to childeren, not nessesaraly a rapist-murderer-paedophile

[Merle Noir]

there are computer viruses that dial up paedo sites, which could account for the high number -- which is of course another sourse of work for the police, sorting out the ips that acess the sites under the instruction of a virus, from the ones that acess them under the instruction of the user. out of interest, what are your views on child internet porn, if i may ask?

 

Good point on the virus's. I hope that is a large part of it.

 

I'll drop the internet part of the porn question as I see no relevance other then it is the primary method of distribution these day. Like so much it has to be further defined. What is Class 1 in the UK I can tell you I likely have in a Magazine I buy in a Book store, and will likely go and pick up tomorrow if I get a chance. The magazine only has a couple photographs it's mostly book reviews movie reviews and then a feature story along the lines of what is discussed here. Of the photographs most would not even be Class 1 in the UK but a few probably are. Generally I find fully clothed pictures more interesting to look at then nudity.

 

In terms of the kind of porn I'm sure you mean, the kind that comes to mind when the topic is mentioned. I don't care for it in the least. I think it is a terrible rot with in the Pedophile community. I can certainly understand the interest in it, like a hetero man that may not buy hard core porn of women can still understand the interest other men have in it. However I think its like a drug it may provide a bit of pleasure but then you have to find the next better high. Like a drug its defended as being a victimless crime. There is now what is called Virtual Porn. It is computer generated pictures and video of simulated boys and men having sex. I've looked at this as well as the Japanese cartoons mentioned earlier. I think with a bit better graphics the Virtual porn could be arousing but its just a road I'd rather not go down. I have found some of the Japanese cartoons very interesting but I find the result is I want to find more and something a bit more aggressive and some of that can be extremely aggressive as it is. There is debate about Virtual Porns legality since the argument a child has to be abused can not be made. Some argue that it is a release that helps keep things undercontrol. Personally I don't know if thats true or not. I can say that my experience is you always start wanting something a bit more aggressive. I don't know where that trend may lead if it could lead to abuse but I just don't care to have my career ruined and risk jail time because it led to pics that where illegal. I've seen enough problems Pedophiles have gotten themselves into because of porn and I don't want to risk it.

[Bettina]

im glad i didnt offend you.

 

my point is this: if youve always liked boys and never were in the position where you felt that you could become a lesbian/bisexual/paedophile' date=' then you cannot claim to have chosen heterosexuality. in the abscense of any choice other than being strait, you cannot [i']choose[/i] to be strait. you had your sexuality thrust upon you, and it happened (and again ill stress, completely independantly of your wishes) to be that you were heterosexual. which is pretty groovy - homosexuality is inconvienient, and paedophillia is from the sounds of it none-to-great a sexual inclanation.

 

but the point im trying to make is that, having not chosen your sexuality, having not in fact having any say in the matter at all, it is purely luck that you yourself are not a paedophile. if the storys are true that child abuse leads to that child growing up to be a paedophile then it is luck that determined that you were not born into a family that contained a paedophilic parent. if it is merely another sexual preferense, then it is luck that determined that you would not have that preferense. as it is true that you did not chose to be heterosexual, it is equaly true to say that you did not chose to not be a paedophile. same as i myself did not chose to not be a paedophile, and from what they have said none of the paedophiles here chose to be paedophiles. which is part of the reason that i personally do not believe that paedophiles* are inherantly evil.

 

so, again offering no offense and appologising in advance if i cause any, what would you do if you had been born a paedophile**? baring in mind that sexuality is not something that most people have the luxury of choosing -- i know of only two people who have been able to choose their sexuality (as opposed to merely ignooring it).

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* ie, people who are sexually attracted to childeren, not the raping-murdering-paedophiles. they, i do consider evil.

**see above. i am using paedophile here to mean someone who is sexually attracted to childeren, not nessesaraly a rapist-murderer-paedophile

 

Your asking me what I would do if I was a pedophile? The only logical answer to that question is.....I don't know. You will have to give me another scenario.

 

Bettina

[Callipygous]

Your asking me what I would do if I was a pedophile? The only logical answer to that question is.....I don't know. You will have to give me another scenario.

 

Bettina

 

 

how about this.

 

what if you having any sexual activity with a boy your age was extremely frowned upon, even illegal? what if it was considered so unacceptable you would be thrown in jail for doing it and at the very least, probably locked up in an institution if you were a repeat offender?

[Coral Rhedd]

Recent discussion tries to make a distinction between pedophiles who act upon their desires and those who do not. Perhaps those who do not act upon their desires should find a word to describe themselves other than pedophile. Here is a definition from a California defense attorney's site.

 

http://www.criminaldefense.com/sex_pedophilia.html

 

n. an obsession with children as sex objects. Overt acts, including taking sexually explicit photographs, molesting children and exposing one's genitalia to children, are all crimes. The problem with these crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness, and the pedophile is often released only to repeat the crimes or escalate the activity to the level of murder.

 

Among police offices and lawyers, this pretty much covers the territory. I have also heard many counselors, social workers, and psychologists use the word pedophile synonymously with one who acts upon that desire.

 

Words change over time. In the U.S., among those involved in law enforcement and victim rights, a pedophile is the same thing as a child molestor. These folks really don't care what people think -- only what people do.

 

If people desire to have sex with children but refrain, then I can commend them only if they do not also view child porn. However the facile justifications for "improving" the law to permit 30 year olds to have sex with 10 year olds are exactly the same arguments that offenders use to excuse their actions.

[Dak]

how about this.

 

what if you having any sexual activity with a boy your age was extremely frowned upon' date=' even illegal? what if it was considered so unacceptable you would be thrown in jail for doing it and at the very least, probably locked up in an institution if you were a repeat offender?[/quote'] ...and also that you yourself considered it immoral, with no exeption, to under any curcumstanses sleep with a man, but your sex drive was telling you to. how would you conduct yourself?