Please try to stay within the parameters of the OP and please post within the following rule.
Vulgarity and Profanity You will not use profanity or foul language (which includes using punctuations to bypass the profanity filter) in your postings. Do not post graphic or sexually explicit images or text. Do not violate community standards. Staff will remain the sole and final arbiter of what does or does not violate community standards.
Mod hat off
__________________
"Let the weak fail" Joseph Schumpeter Wondering what kind of Christianity would allow such mindset SAVE GREECE!
"But he saves the poor from the sword, from their mouth, and from the hand of the mighty." Job 5.15
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Christ is Risen! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well, they are viewed quite similar (most don't know the difference), so really either or both.
__________________
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
Wikipedia:
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.
Lawtonfongle, is that the definition you are working with, or mere attraction towards children?
-Lyn
I am wanting to focus on the group of people who are sexually attracted to children, who may or may not feel distress over it, but who have NOT acted on it.
__________________
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
If a known pedophile is teaching young children, then yes they should be fired. I would question the judgement of anyone who would put themselves in a situation where they would be around young children where they would constantly be tempted. I think it would only be a matter of time before their temptation got the best of them.
If you know you have a problem, especially as serious as pedophilia, then you should do everything in your power to avoid situations that might make you do something inappropriate/illegal.
I am wanting to focus on the group of people who are sexually attracted to children, who may or may not feel distress over it, but who have NOT acted on it.
I think the distress part makes somewhat of a difference.
If someone is merely attracted to children, but does not act on it and it does not impair his or her life, then there isn't a problem. It makes no more sense to distance them from children as it does to distance a straight man from all women for fear that he will do something wrong. If a person is in control, then let him or her do his job. One must question how it is known that the teacher is a pedophile, though. Was child porn on the teacher's computer? If so, that's illegal, and he or she should be fired. Does the teacher openly admit it? How else would someone know if there was not an incident or illegal activity?
If, on the other hand, someone is strongly attracted to children to the point where it causes a problem in their life, and that is found out, then it's probably best not to have them in a teaching position, or at least not for young children. If there has never been an incident, let that person teach college, because I wouldn't want someone who is stressed out over an attraction towards children to be in the same room with my hypothetical child everyday.
Originally Posted by lawtonfogle
In another thread, I asked the question that if a school teacher is discovered to be a pedophile, but has never done anything illegal or even questionable, should they lose their job? One may argue that they are more likely to endanger a child, but we both lack statistics to actually prove this, and even if true, is potential risk for just belonging to some group enough to fire them? For example, lets say in some town, white teachers have a higher chance to use too much force (enough to possibly cause hospitalization) breaking up a school yard fight than black teachers. Now, this chance is very small in both groups, but in one it is higher. Is this sufficient reasons to disqualify white people from teaching, at least in that area?
No. It's important to base the decision on an individual, not on a group. It's a bad precedent to make hiring decisions based on societal statistics.
Finally, back to the original question, does it matter if this is a male pedophile or a female pedophile? In all honesty, do you think it would matter in society (I am generally talking American society, but if you live elsewhere, feel free to answer for your own society).
Gender should ideally not make a difference. I'd honestly be a bit more concerned over a male pedophile, but that's just bias, and both genders should be treated the same.
-Lyn
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think the distress part makes somewhat of a difference.
If someone is merely attracted to children, but does not act on it and it does not impair his or her life, then there isn't a problem. It makes no more sense to distance them from children as it does to distance a straight man from all women for fear that he will do something wrong. If a person is in control, then let him or her do his job. One must question how it is known that the teacher is a pedophile, though. Was child porn on the teacher's computer? If so, that's illegal, and he or she should be fired. Does the teacher openly admit it? How else would someone know if there was not an incident or illegal activity?
I never really came up with a very realistic way for a teacher to be found out, but lets assume how ever it happened, it was not because of anything illegal or morally questionable. Perhaps a friend was talking to the teacher as he fell asleep, as it is possible for some people to be borderline asleep so that they answer questions, but have little ability to lie.
As to the distress, I am not 100% sure what that means. Does someone who thinks that being sexually attracted to children is bad, and wishes they did not have such an attraction, but has no other thoughts on the issue, constitute someone in distress? I do not know.
If, on the other hand, someone is strongly attracted to children to the point where it causes a problem in their life, and that is found out, then it's probably best not to have them in a teaching position, or at least not for young children. If there has never been an incident, let that person teach college, because I wouldn't want someone who is stressed out over an attraction towards children to be in the same room with my hypothetical child everyday.
No. It's important to base the decision on an individual, not on a group. It's a bad precedent to make hiring decisions based on societal staistics.
Gender should ideally not make a difference. I'd honestly be a bit more concerned over a male pedophile, but that's just bias, and both genders should be treated the same.
-Lyn
I do wonder how many out there outright reject the idea of a female pedophile?
__________________
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
Well, they are viewed quite similar (most don't know the difference), so really either or both.
whether or not they know the difference is irrelevant. There is a difference. We should not make excuses for ignorance.
In the case of a true pedophile, I would say no. They should not be allowed anywhere near children unsupervised for their own sake and more importantly for the sake of the child in question.
I do wonder how many out there outright reject the idea of a female pedophile?
I'm sure some do. Some people reject the idea of a female raping someone, as though it's not possible.
I suppose there are reasons for it. Men are often the pursuers, are more likely to be sexually aggressive, and when it comes to actual intercourse, their role is to penetrate instead of receive, which sort of verifies the previous aspects. As far as I know, far more men are caught for rape or sexual assault or pedophilia.
There's also a perceived notion about the victim as well. Teenage and younger girls are viewed as weaker, more innocent, and more emotional. Teenage and younger boys are viewed as stronger, less emotional, and more desiring of sex once they reach puberty. So the concept of, say, a 16 year old male student getting pursued by a female teacher is viewed as far less problematic than if the genders were switched.
It's hard to get around the bias. Like I said, I myself would worry more about male pedophilia even though it's potentially just as bad both ways. Young people of either gender are vulnerable, can carry emotional issues, and can have all sorts of problems if they are victims of sexual assault.
-Lyn
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
whether or not they know the difference is irrelevant. There is a difference. We should not make excuses for ignorance.
In the case of a true pedophile, I would say no. They should not be allowed anywhere near children unsupervised for their own sake and more importantly for the sake of the child in question.
In the case of hebephilia, that's a grayer issue.
Not really. A hebephile is still attracted to those underage, and while, since they are older, they may have a stronger ability to fight off unwanted advancements, I do not see this making a big impact of if they should be hired or not. Now, if we are dealing with an ephebophile, as they are attracted to people of legal age (well, they are attracted to people ~16-19, and in most states, 16+ is considered able to handle themselves in such matters).
__________________
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
In another thread, I asked the question that if a school teacher is discovered to be a pedophile, but has never done anything illegal or even questionable, should they lose their job? One may argue that they are more likely to endanger a child, but we both lack statistics to actually prove this, and even if true, is potential risk for just belonging to some group enough to fire them? For example, lets say in some town, white teachers have a higher chance to use too much force (enough to possibly cause hospitalization) breaking up a school yard fight than black teachers. Now, this chance is very small in both groups, but in one it is higher. Is this sufficient reasons to disqualify white people from teaching, at least in that area?
Finally, back to the original question, does it matter if this is a male pedophile or a female pedophile? In all honesty, do you think it would matter in society (I am generally talking American society, but if you live elsewhere, feel free to answer for your own society).
Linear Mode
