Maleness and Teaching

[lawtonfogle]

Now, finally, I understand your argument.
I think it is flawed, though (or, we are working from different ideas what a pedophile is).
We don´t need to know what percentage of pedophiles end up molesting childs in order to conclude a higher risk - we just need to know that it takes a pedophile to molest a child.

Except it does not. An actual study of child abuse (well, child sexual abuse, as studying the other forms of abuse is not applicable here) shows that not all people who molest children as sexually attracted to it.

To put it simply, child molestations can be broken down into two categories. The first category is the one most of us think about when we think of child molestations, where a child is kidnapped and then raped, against their will. The other form, the one we often don't think of, is where the child willingly agrees to engage in the sexual activity. Now, we agree that the child is not able to consent to such a thing, and that they have likely be groomed into making such a choice, but I think that any person can tell that there is still a difference. In the second case, the molester might not even realize the are harming the child. In the former, the point is often to cause harm to a child.

Now, pedophiles appear in both groups, but due to the motives of both groups, pedophiles are not required for either. The first group is very similar to rape among adults, where it is more about asserting power over another person and causing them pain than it is about sex. It is possible to get people who molest children, not because they are sexually attracted to children, but because they want to punish the child, cause the child pain.

In the second category, we are dealing with people who are wanting to engage in a willing sexual relationship with a child. While we agree this is harmful to the child, talking to the perpetrators will often show that they did not engage in this activity to cause harm. Now, the most obvious reason (at least common sense, but common sense can be wrong) is because they are sexually attracted to a child. But there are also other reasons, such as just being sexually attracted to the taboo nature of the act. Some people are sexually attracted to what sexual acts society condemns, and few things are condemned more than this. Another reason is because of what is termed blockage. This is where a person (normally male) was in an adult sexual relationship, but due to some circumstance, he was forced to quit (for example his wife becomes to ill to have sex). While many males will use personal means to fulfill their sexual desires, others will seek out other partners. In most cases, these are also adults, and we have affairs forming, but some times, due to a number of factors which DOES NOT have to include a sexual attraction to children, they begin to engage in sexual contact with their child/step child. You also have those who, for a number of reasons including social anxiety and some personality disorders, are unable to form romantic or sexual relationships with adults, and turn to children. Thus...

IOW: 100% of child molesters are pedophiles (maybe there are a few exceptions - people who do it for other reasons, but this seems to be a statistically neglectible group), thus pedophiles have a higher risk of molesting children (because non-pedophiles don´t do it).

...this is not true.

Also, you have a weird cases which tend to not fit into either category regularly, such as the father who is sexually attracted to his own children, even though when tested, he shows a lack of sexual attraction to children in general, like that of the average male.

Now, some studies have shown that a very high percentage of child molesters are pedophiles, much higher than any reasonable estimations of pedophiles in society at large, but even with this, one is one weak grounds at best. Especially when one considers a question such as this:

"Is a child molester more likely to be male or more likely to be a pedophile?"

Of the data I found, there is around a 88% chance of a molester to be a pedophile (this was from Wikipedia, but the study they linked to could not be retrieved, so I would cast some doubt on this number). A report which I saw mentioned in a BBC article mentions that a women is responsible in about 20% of male cases, and 5% of female cases (of course, this report is also old, and so this cast some shadow of doubt). Now, while the majority of child molested are females, recent research is suggesting that more boys have been molested than what has normally be considered, so we will assume males and females are equally molested, so the average rate of molestation for female is around 12.5% (average of 20 and 5). As such, the average molester has a 87.5% chance to be a male (as they have a 12.5% chance to be a female).

So to recap.

Any given molester seems to have a 88% chance to be a pedophile and a 87.5% chance to be a male. This is NOT the chance of any given male or pedophile will molester (as I have already claimed, these figures are generally unknown), I conclude them to be too similar to say they are different enough to change the laws. Of course, these statistics are not the ones we should be using, as we should use the ones which tell the chance that a given male or a given pedophile will molest children, but while the former can be computed, there is no current way to compute the latter with enough reliability to base a law off of.

And to recap one point one last time, much of the research I used was not of the highest quality, but I think the results show that we do need high quality research to make the claims some are making, and that we cannot rely upon the assumptions some have made to back those claims.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Don't know. But I think sexual abuse of children by males is reported much more frequently.

However, this raises an interesting question. I do remember reading that the infamous Mary Kay Letourneau (now married as Mary Kay Fualaau) would like to return to teaching. Assuming her teaching credentials are up to date, should this be allowed? (Would be in a private school.)

I wonder if I should start a thread based on this question...

Add a nice little poll. Yes, no, not sure.

BTW, do you have a link to her wanting to come back to teaching?

 

[quatona]

Except it does not. An actual study of child abuse (well, child sexual abuse, as studying the other forms of abuse is not applicable here) shows that not all people who molest children as sexually attracted to it.

To put it simply, child molestations can be broken down into two categories. The first category is the one most of us think about when we think of child molestations, where a child is kidnapped and then raped, against their will. The other form, the one we often don't think of, is where the child willingly agrees to engage in the sexual activity. Now, we agree that the child is not able to consent to such a thing, and that they have likely be groomed into making such a choice, but I think that any person can tell that there is still a difference. In the second case, the molester might not even realize the are harming the child. In the former, the point is often to cause harm to a child.

Now, pedophiles appear in both groups, but due to the motives of both groups, pedophiles are not required for either. The first group is very similar to rape among adults, where it is more about asserting power over another person and causing them pain than it is about sex. It is possible to get people who molest children, not because they are sexually attracted to children, but because they want to punish the child, cause the child pain.

In the second category, we are dealing with people who are wanting to engage in a willing sexual relationship with a child. While we agree this is harmful to the child, talking to the perpetrators will often show that they did not engage in this activity to cause harm. Now, the most obvious reason (at least common sense, but common sense can be wrong) is because they are sexually attracted to a child. But there are also other reasons, such as just being sexually attracted to the taboo nature of the act. Some people are sexually attracted to what sexual acts society condemns, and few things are condemned more than this. Another reason is because of what is termed blockage. This is where a person (normally male) was in an adult sexual relationship, but due to some circumstance, he was forced to quit (for example his wife becomes to ill to have sex). While many males will use personal means to fulfill their sexual desires, others will seek out other partners. In most cases, these are also adults, and we have affairs forming, but some times, due to a number of factors which DOES NOT have to include a sexual attraction to children, they begin to engage in sexual contact with their child/step child. You also have those who, for a number of reasons including social anxiety and some personality disorders, are unable to form romantic or sexual relationships with adults, and turn to children.

As I already mentioned, a lot gets lost in different ideas of what "pedophile" means. There may be a lot of reasons why people are attracted to children (and you give some good examples), but the fact that there are reasons for their attraction doesn´t change anything about it being an attraction.
I will, however, concede your point that there are people who are obsessed with power etc., and take whatever victim is available.

Also, you have a weird cases which tend to not fit into either category regularly, such as the father who is sexually attracted to his own children, even though when tested, he shows a lack of sexual attraction to children in general, like that of the average male.

I would have no problem calling this father a pedophile. I don´t think you need to be attracted to all children in order to be called a pedophile - one child would be sufficient, imo.

Now, some studies have shown that a very high percentage of child molesters are pedophiles, much higher than any reasonable estimations of pedophiles in society at large, but even with this, one is one weak grounds at best.

I don´t think you are on weak grounds with this when concluding a higher risk for pedophiles to molest a child than for men in general. In fact, this is exactly what such a study would prove.

Especially when one considers a question such as this:

"Is a child molester more likely to be male or more likely to be a pedophile?"

It seems to me that this question has it backwards when trying to narrow down the statistical risk of child molestation for any given member of one of these groups. If you want to go down that road you can also show that a child molester is more likely to be human than male or pedophile. This is not how we determine a statistical risk.
Of course, since there is a higher number of men than of pedophiles, a child molester is more likely to be male than a pedophile.
The actual question would be:
"What´s the percentage of men that molest a child, and what is the percentage of pedophiles that molest a child?" That way you arrive at calculating the risk for a member of one of these groups to become a child molester.

Of the data I found, there is around a 88% chance of a molester to be a pedophile (this was from Wikipedia, but the study they linked to could not be retrieved, so I would cast some doubt on this number). A report which I saw mentioned in a BBC article mentions that a women is responsible in about 20% of male cases, and 5% of female cases (of course, this report is also old, and so this cast some shadow of doubt). Now, while the majority of child molested are females, recent research is suggesting that more boys have been molested than what has normally be considered, so we will assume males and females are equally molested, so the average rate of molestation for female is around 12.5% (average of 20 and 5). As such, the average molester has a 87.5% chance to be a male (as they have a 12.5% chance to be a female).

Again, you have it backwards. The question is not "What risk does a child molester have to be a male?" but "What risk does a male have to be a child molester?"

Any given molester seems to have a 88% chance to be a pedophile and a 87.5% chance to be a male.

This doesn´t tell me anything of interest in regards to the question at hand, as it simply veils the fact that a pedophile has a higher risk of molesting a child than the average male. You are calculating an irrelevant risk here (for the given purpose. I am suspecting that a child molester has an about 80-90% chance of being an employee, either, an even higher chance of being a meat-eater, a near 100% risk of being a cell phone owner or a credit card owner, and, after all, a child molester has a 100% risk of being human.
So, quite obviously, this is not how such risk calculations work (for the given purpose). They imply invalid reverse conclusions, to be precise.

This is NOT the chance of any given male or pedophile will molester (as I have already claimed, these figures are generally unknown), I conclude them to be too similar to say they are different enough to change the laws. Of course, these statistics are not the ones we should be using, as we should use the ones which tell the chance that a given male or a given pedophile will molest children,

Exactly...so why do you put so much effort in calculating irrelevant risks that only cloud the issue??

but while the former can be computed, there is no current way to compute the latter with enough reliability to base a law off of.

I wonder if it is true that there is no way to compute the latter. It doesn´t seem to be too complicated. Since the calculation you have presented is based on apparent knowledge which children have been molested by pedophiles and which by non-pedophile men (or women), all necessary raw data to make the relevant risk calculation seem to be available.

Remains the problem for a society to determine which risk it is willing to accept, and beyond which threshold it is willing to take pre-emptive measures. This is the actual problem, and the acceptance or non-acceptance of risks is very irrational (since it has to do with fear) - even if we have sufficiently reliable data, as it seems to be the case in the question at hand.

And to recap one point one last time, much of the research I used was not of the highest quality, but I think the results show that we do need high quality research to make the claims some are making, and that we cannot rely upon the assumptions some have made to back those claims.

To also recap: The results you have presented are irrelevant. They have it backwards. With the raw data that lead to these irrelevant results, we should easily be able to calculate the actually relevant risks.
A pedophile has a significantly higher risk of becoming a child molester than a non-pedophile male. Even though this is obvious, I am all for substantiating it with high quality research instead of leaving it to assumptions.
However, asking the wrong question will not prove anything.

Anyway, even if we get a reliable relevant result such as (I am just making the figures up for an example) "10% of males become child molesters at one point in their lives, and 30% of pedophiles become child molesters at some point in their lives" we are still facing the problem of determining at which percentage we are willing to draw the line beyond which we take pre-emptive measures. Ideally, we would answer this question before getting the results.

 

[lawtonfogle]

As I already mentioned, a lot gets lost in different ideas of what "pedophile" means. There may be a lot of reasons why people are attracted to children (and you give some good examples), but the fact that there are reasons for their attraction doesn´t change anything about it being an attraction.
I will, however, concede your point that there are people who are obsessed with power etc., and take whatever victim is available.


I would have no problem calling this father a pedophile. I don´t think you need to be attracted to all children in order to be called a pedophile - one child would be sufficient, imo.

While an attraction to a single child is enough to be a pedophile, special cases should be noted for their differences. But the use of that word is going to be inherently different. Consider a homosexual man who was sexually attracted to a single female years ago. While he may technically fit the definition of a bi-sexual, he is clearly an outlier of what a bisexual is. In the case of a pedophile only attracted to his children, the danger he presents to children not his own is no different than a non-pedophile, while the danger a pedophile attracted to harming children presents to children may be (and I think would be) far worse than the average pedophile attracted to children in a way far more comparable to the way a hetero/homosexual is attracted to members of the opposite/same sex.

I don´t think you are on weak grounds with this when concluding a higher risk for pedophiles to molest a child than for men in general. In fact, this is exactly what such a study would prove.

No it isn't, as it ask the question of what chance is a molester a pedophile, which as both you and I admit is the backward question.

It seems to me that this question has it backwards when trying to narrow down the statistical risk of child molestation for any given member of one of these groups. If you want to go down that road you can also show that a child molester is more likely to be human than male or pedophile. This is not how we determine a statistical risk.
Of course, since there is a higher number of men than of pedophiles, a child molester is more likely to be male than a pedophile.
The actual question would be:
"What´s the percentage of men that molest a child, and what is the percentage of pedophiles that molest a child?" That way you arrive at calculating the risk for a member of one of these groups to become a child molester.

Again, you have it backwards. The question is not "What risk does a child molester have to be a male?" but "What risk does a male have to be a child molester?"



This doesn´t tell me anything of interest in regards to the question at hand, as it simply veils the fact that a pedophile has a higher risk of molesting a child than the average male. You are calculating an irrelevant risk here (for the given purpose. I am suspecting that a child molester has an about 80-90% chance of being an employee, either, an even higher chance of being a meat-eater, a near 100% risk of being a cell phone owner or a credit card owner, and, after all, a child molester has a 100% risk of being human.
So, quite obviously, this is not how such risk calculations work (for the given purpose). They imply invalid reverse conclusions, to be precise.
Exactly...so why do you put so much effort in calculating irrelevant risks that only cloud the issue??

Because that is the only risk that can be calculated, and the risk some people have been using. So even without admitting it is backwards reasoning (literally), we see it says nothing which would not apply to males. Also, the reason I finished calculating it was because I did not know it before calculating it in this thread, and was interested in the results myself .

I wonder if it is true that there is no way to compute the latter. It doesn´t seem to be too complicated. Since the calculation you have presented is based on apparent knowledge which children have been molested by pedophiles and which by non-pedophile men (or women), all necessary raw data to make the relevant risk calculation seem to be available.

To calculate the chance any given pedophile will molest a child, we need the number of child molesters who are pedophiles (or pedophiles who are child molesters, as they are the same thing), and the number of pedophiles at large. We would then divide the former by the latter, and multiply by 100%. This would give us the percentage of pedophiles who molest children. The problem is we have no clue how many pedophiles at large exist. Perhaps there are 100 pedophiles in the US who have never harmed a child? Perhaps there are 100,000,000 pedophiles in the US who have never harmed a child. The problem with collecting this data is that this is one of the most sensitive and potentially destructive pieces of data you could ask someone, and even with fully anonymity, a large percentage will still lie about it.

Remains the problem for a society to determine which risk it is willing to accept, and beyond which threshold it is willing to take pre-emptive measures. This is the actual problem, and the acceptance or non-acceptance of risks is very irrational (since it has to do with fear) - even if we have sufficiently reliable data, as it seems to be the case in the question at hand.

Yes, and this is an issue which will be very hard to separate from the emotion involved.

To also recap: The results you have presented are irrelevant. They have it backwards.

But I was interested in the results even if they are irrelevant to this discussion.

With the raw data that lead to these irrelevant results, we should easily be able to calculate the actually relevant risks.

Not true. The raw data needed to calculate the percentage of child molesters who are pedophiles are 'number of child molesters who are pedophiles' and 'number of child molesters'. The raw data needed to calculate the percentage of pedophiles who are child molesters are 'number of child molesters who are pedophiles' and 'number of pedophiles'. The latter is the data which is very troublesome to obtain, if not currently impossible.

A pedophile has a significantly higher risk of becoming a child molester than a non-pedophile male. Even though this is obvious, I am all for substantiating it with high quality research instead of leaving it to assumptions.

The problem is that I have believe one too many 'obvious' things which have been shown wrong to be willing to make laws based on something that is obvious which we do not have data to back.

However, asking the wrong question will not prove anything.

But it will provide interesting trivia, which tends to prove useful in other areas of life at the weirdest times.

Anyway, even if we get a reliable relevant result such as (I am just making the figures up for an example) "10% of males become child molesters at one point in their lives, and 30% of pedophiles become child molesters at some point in their lives" we are still facing the problem of determining at which percentage we are willing to draw the line beyond which we take pre-emptive measures. Ideally, we would answer this question before getting the results.

Well it would avoid bias, but I have the feeling a lot of people are not going to stick by what ever figure they set when/if the data comes out.

And in all of this, we are still ignoring some key aspects. Such as, the rate of pedophiles who molest children verses the rate of pedophiles who are in preventive therapy who molester child may be differ drastically, and thus while the former is too dangerous to be a teacher, the latter is not.

 

[Voegelin]

Very unusual for a man to want to be around little kids that much. This used to be understood. There were very few if any male teachers in elementary schools.

 

[quatona]

Well, lawtonfogle, anticipating your agreement, I will try to cut all this a bit shorter and reduce my responses to the more relevant parts.

1. I am glad we agree that the quoted figures don´t tell us anything of interest for the question at hand (no matter how interesting they may be to you personally for other purposes - purposes that I can´t seem to think of, though).
2. Since these figures work from factual cases of child molestation, and since these figures are working from the knowledge of whether the perpetrator was a pedophile or not, I´m pretty positive that they allow for comparing the risks of a child molestation being committed by a male in general and a pedophile male. Even if the data would e.g. show that the risk is about the same, we can conclude from the fact that male pedophiles are a subset of males in general (and you were the one explaining to me how there are many males who are not pedophiles, after all), that a pedophile male has a higher risk of molesting a child than a mere male.
3. Many of your remarks plead for narrowing down the risk factors by looking closer at more and more fine tuned factors, and I am with you here. That was exactly my objection to your OP: It suggested the opposite way.

While an attraction to a single child is enough to be a pedophile, special cases should be noted for their differences. But the use of that word is going to be inherently different. Consider a homosexual man who was sexually attracted to a single female years ago. While he may technically fit the definition of a bi-sexual, he is clearly an outlier of what a bisexual is. In the case of a pedophile only attracted to his children, the danger he presents to children not his own is no different than a non-pedophile, while the danger a pedophile attracted to harming children presents to children may be (and I think would be) far worse than the average pedophile attracted to children in a way far more comparable to the way a hetero/homosexual is attracted to members of the opposite/same sex.


4.

To calculate the chance any given pedophile will molest a child, we need the number of child molesters who are pedophiles (or pedophiles who are child molesters, as they are the same thing), and the number of pedophiles at large. We would then divide the former by the latter, and multiply by 100%. This would give us the percentage of pedophiles who molest children. The problem is we have no clue how many pedophiles at large exist. Perhaps there are 100 pedophiles in the US who have never harmed a child? Perhaps there are 100,000,000 pedophiles in the US who have never harmed a child. The problem with collecting this data is that this is one of the most sensitive and potentially destructive pieces of data you could ask someone, and even with fully anonymity, a large percentage will still lie about it.

Apart from my above suggestion how to at least try to use the available raw data in a more meaningful way, I am wondering the following:
Your argument here seems to boil down to: We cannot know how many pedophiles are out there, and we don´t know who is a pedophile (until they have finally molested a child and we get hold of them and interrogate them - which is the basis for the calculations you have presented) because people won´t be honest about it.
Doesn´t that make the issue (Should we discriminate against pedophiles?) a non-issue, in the first place? If we don´t know who is a pedophile, how can we possibly discriminate against them?
5. I´m not an expert in the field of statistics, but I doubt that the sensitivity of the subject prevents estimating reasonably realistic figures how high the percentage of male pedophiles among males in general is. We do this sort of stuff all the time with similarly private and sensitive information. Granted, there will always be an error margin, and the error margin will always be higher with private and sensitive data, but that doesn´t leave us completely clueless. Homosexuality, for example, used to (and often still is) such a subject, yet we have sufficiently reliable data to conclude that there aren´t 100.000.000 homosexuals in the USofA, but a percentage of 2-10%.




6.

And in all of this, we are still ignoring some key aspects. Such as, the rate of pedophiles who molest children verses the rate of pedophiles who are in preventive therapy who molester child may be differ drastically, and thus while the former is too dangerous to be a teacher, the latter is not.

Well, your argument was that we can´t say anything about the former group anyways because we don´t know who and how many they are.
However, we have all the data we need concerning the latter group (we know they are pedophiles, and we know they are in reparative therapy). So why not (instead of going down slippery slopes a la: "but what about males(credit card owners/humans in general"), start from these data and at least ask the right questions.
If, for example, we find out that pedophile males in reparative therapy have a higher risk of molesting a child than males in general, we can conclude that pedophiles of the former group must have at least the same but probalby an ever higher risk (according to what you have suggested above).
If, however, we find out that pedophile males in therapy have the same or an even lower risk of molesting a child than males in general, all the better. We can relax at least in regards to this group (although this particular approach and this particular result doesn´t allow for any conclusions in regards to unknown pedophiles out there).

 

[quatona]

Very unusual for a man to want to be around little kids that much. This used to be understood. There were very few if any male teachers in elementary schools.

I work as a private guitar teacher. While in younger years I preferred to work with teenagers or adults (and didn´t get much out of teaching little kids) I find myself increasingly enjoying the work with increasingly younger kids.
Do I have to worry that I am turning into a pedophile?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Very unusual for a man to want to be around little kids that much. This used to be understood. There were very few if any male teachers in elementary schools.

*blink* Every teacher I had from year 3 to year 7 was male. All my cub leaders and scout leaders were male. I think its sad you are so desperate to see impropriety that men wanting to work with children makes you automatically suspect.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Well, lawtonfogle, anticipating your agreement, I will try to cut all this a bit shorter and reduce my responses to the more relevant parts.

1. I am glad we agree that the quoted figures don´t tell us anything of interest for the question at hand (no matter how interesting they may be to you personally for other purposes - purposes that I can´t seem to think of, though).

It is random trivia. If I had any clue what purpose it would be useful for, it wouldn't be random.

2. Since these figures work from factual cases of child molestation, and since these figures are working from the knowledge of whether the perpetrator was a pedophile or not, I´m pretty positive that they allow for comparing the risks of a child molestation being committed by a male in general and a pedophile male. Even if the data would e.g. show that the risk is about the same, we can conclude from the fact that male pedophiles are a subset of males in general (and you were the one explaining to me how there are many males who are not pedophiles, after all), that a pedophile male has a higher risk of molesting a child than a mere male.

But there are female pedophiles as well, and they get far less attention that male pedophile. I don't even think there is a good test for female pedophilia (there is one for males, but it requires their consent to be tested).

3. Many of your remarks plead for narrowing down the risk factors by looking closer at more and more fine tuned factors, and I am with you here. That was exactly my objection to your OP: It suggested the opposite way.

The OP was written as an extension of the logic some others were using in another thread, who were (among other things) not agreeing to look closer at the fine tuning factors. I personally disagree with the OP as well.

4.

Apart from my above suggestion how to at least try to use the available raw data in a more meaningful way, I am wondering the following:
Your argument here seems to boil down to: We cannot know how many pedophiles are out there, and we don´t know who is a pedophile (until they have finally molested a child and we get hold of them and interrogate them - which is the basis for the calculations you have presented) because people won´t be honest about it.
Doesn´t that make the issue (Should we discriminate against pedophiles?) a non-issue, in the first place? If we don´t know who is a pedophile, how can we possibly discriminate against them?

You have two issues here. First off, we discriminate against pedophiles so strongly that many men are scarred of even making a parent think they are one.

Second off, rarely is a non-offending pedophile found out, but some are, and in those cases they tend to be extremely discriminated against.

My main concern with this is that there are some pedophiles who are at risk of offending, but had our society been more willing to work with them, they could get the social support as well as therapy. Currently though, they feel increasingly isolated and hated by society, increasing their risk to children. Someone who (thinks they are) is totally isolated from and hated by society has a lot less to lose from breaking societies rules.

5. I´m not an expert in the field of statistics, but I doubt that the sensitivity of the subject prevents estimating reasonably realistic figures how high the percentage of male pedophiles among males in general is. We do this sort of stuff all the time with similarly private and sensitive information. Granted, there will always be an error margin, and the error margin will always be higher with private and sensitive data, but that doesn´t leave us completely clueless. Homosexuality, for example, used to (and often still is) such a subject, yet we have sufficiently reliable data to conclude that there aren´t 100.000.000 homosexuals in the USofA, but a percentage of 2-10%.

Yes, there are some methods for getting rough estimations, but the error margin increases as the sensitivity of the question does. The amount one will be socially ostracized for being discovered a homosexual is quite small compared to being discovered a pedophile. Homosexuals have their own support groups to help deal with being an outcast, and while people may think you are a disgusting sinner, very few of them see you as a blight that must be removed for the protection of children.

6.

Well, your argument was that we can´t say anything about the former group anyways because we don´t know who and how many they are.
However, we have all the data we need concerning the latter group (we know they are pedophiles, and we know they are in reparative therapy). So why not (instead of going down slippery slopes a la: "but what about males(credit card owners/humans in general"), start from these data and at least ask the right questions.
If, for example, we find out that pedophile males in reparative therapy have a higher risk of molesting a child than males in general, we can conclude that pedophiles of the former group must have at least the same but probalby an ever higher risk (according to what you have suggested above).

Well, almost every given pedophile in therapy has already offended once, and the recidivism rate is poor indication of the first time offense rate. We could compare the recidivism rate of pedophile child molesters compared to non-pedophile child molesters for some indication.

One bit of data I remember from one therapy option is that less than 2% of those who completed the therapy (some walked out as they were not required by law to attend) reoffended. Considering 1 out of every 5 children (roughly) is molested, and the majority of molestations are done by males, it would seem a random male has a higher chance to molest than a child molester (pedophile or not) who completed therapy. Of course, this data missed one very important tidbit, many molesters have multiple victims, so assuming every child molester was done so by a different person is erroneous at best. That said, the needed statistics are likely to exist, and one may be able to calculate the risk of a child molester whom has taken therapy to reoffend compared to males at large (or even humans at large). One other note is that therapies differ, and few are probably as successful as the one I remember reading about.

If, however, we find out that pedophile males in therapy have the same or an even lower risk of molesting a child than males in general, all the better. We can relax at least in regards to this group (although this particular approach and this particular result doesn´t allow for any conclusions in regards to unknown pedophiles out there).

While I do agree that some non-offending pedophiles are in therapy, and thus we could try to use their numbers, I have a feeling we are going to encounter the same problems, especially if they managed to get into therapy while keeping thier status as a pedophile secrete from society at large.

 

[Zebra1552]

Very unusual for a man to want to be around little kids that much. This used to be understood. There were very few if any male teachers in elementary schools.

Why is it unusual?

 

[Skaloop]

Very unusual for a man to want to be around little kids that much. This used to be understood. There were very few if any male teachers in elementary schools.

Becoming a teacher is generally not about wanting to "be around little kids that much." It's about choosing a profession that is of great service to society. Or a profession that gives them good summer breaks. Or a profession that has fairly good job security.

Do firemen necessarily like to be around fire? Do police officers necessarily like to be around criminals? Do doctors necessarily like to be around the sick? No? And teachers don't necessarily like to be around little kids that much. Yes, all of the above have to do those things. They don't need to like it, but they accept it as part of their job. Doesn't mean that that's why they got into that job.

Heck, the way you say it, a man who wants to spend time with his kids is unusual.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Heck, the way you say it, a man who wants to spend time with his kids is unusual.

And now is the perfect time to list the stats of how most children are molested by male family members.

 

[jayem]

I wonder if I should start a thread based on this question...

Add a nice little poll. Yes, no, not sure.

BTW, do you have a link to her wanting to come back to teaching?

Re. Mary Kay: I think I read it in a People magazine, but I did find a link from a TV interview:

Letourneau and Fualaau, one year later - Dateline NBC- msnbc.com

 

[Skaloop]

And now is the perfect time to list the stats of how most children are molested by male family members.

Sure. But a father who wants to spend time with his kids, or an uncle who likes to play with his nieces and nephews, or a grandfather who bounces his grandchild on his knee are not unusual. So why would a man who wants to educate children be unusual?

 

[OllieFranz]

Very unusual for a man to want to be around little kids that much. This used to be understood. There were very few if any male teachers in elementary schools.

You are joking, of course, aren't you? Until about the 1950's there were more male teachers than female, even in elementary grades, partly because the female teachers did not make a career out of it, dropping out of the field to raise a family, and partly because men were assumed to be "smarter" and therefore better equiped to pass on their knowledge and so were the preferred hire (That is also why female teachers, for the most part, were relegated to the elementary grades -- they could teach the basics, the 3 R's, but real learning, that took a man to pass down)

As someone else pointed out, teaching was (and is) a career, not a social playground. Both the teachers and the communities that hired them were concerned about teachers doing the job, not about teachers "interacting" with the kids.

 

[OllieFranz]

Sorry, Double Post

 

[Maxwell511]

Obviously anyone who wants to work with children has suspect motives. Therefore only people who hate children and don't want to be teachers should be permitted to teach.

Anyone that wants kids must be suspected as being preverted. Seriously, they get sexually excited when they are trying to produce the child. There is too close a connection between "sex" and "children" in those people's mind.

 

[Wildcat48]

I think there is also something to be said for male teachers serving as strong role models for school age boys which they may lack in the rest of the school and at home. The vast majority of male teachers are not pedophiles. To ban male teachers is to throw the baby out with the bath water.