Please Define Pedophile

[lawtonfogle]

I am saying that the mentality that pedophilia is an orientation will result in it being relabled as a non-deviancy just as homosexuality was. I am saying that the boy who molested my niece knew enough to threaten a six year old and that makes him cupable regardless of his low IQ. He was NOT retarded. His lawyer simply used the low IQ to convince a judge that the boy did not "mean to". He did mean to if he threatened my niece and the other little girls. It had been going on for several years and it was my brave niece who exposed him. The police called her a hero.

If he was able to hide it for a number of years, then this brings up a number of points. The first is I don't think he is a pedophile because of his age when it started. There is something of a lower bounds to being classified as one. Second is that he is does seem mentally competent. Third is what in the world does convincing a judge have to do with anything, wasn't this taken before a jury? Fourth is a question: has he been put on the sex offenders list?

I am saying that there is no such thing as a non-practicing pedophile. Either they molest, or touch to the idea of molesting a child. I am saying that it is NOT OKAY for someone to look upon any child in that way. Their very thoughts condemn them and do not deserve sympathy.

Masturbating doesn't count as practicing here, otherwise 98% of men and some large percent of women would be rapist.

I am saying that there is already a group called NAMBLA who would LOVE to be labeled as an orientation rather than a deviancy.

C'mon people! Does ANTHING go these days? A line has to be drawn at some point.

Well... you need to remember. These days a lot less things go than what it use to be like. Back 200 -250 ish years ago the age of consent was between 7-12 in America. The number one reason the age of consent went up was because of child labor laws.

 

[Lisa0315]

If he was able to hide it for a number of years, then this brings up a number of points. The first is I don't think he is a pedophile because of his age when it started. There is something of a lower bounds to being classified as one. Second is that he is does seem mentally competent. Third is what in the world does convincing a judge have to do with anything, wasn't this taken before a jury? Fourth is a question: has he been put on the sex offenders list?


Masturbating doesn't count as practicing here, otherwise 98% of men and some large percent of women would be rapist.

Well... you need to remember. These days a lot less things go than what it use to be like. Back 200 -250 ish years ago the age of consent was between 7-12 in America. The number one reason the age of consent went up was because of child labor laws.

If someone is masturbating to child porn, then, think about what you are okaying here. Someone had to make that film. They are not cartoon characters. They are real life children and masturbation to such a thing is wrong even if the person never meets the child in person. Someone forced that child to get naked, take pictures, and potentially force the child to participate or perform in sexual acts. So, you are okay with that???? You are okay with someone making films of this sort and someone else paying money to touch to it? You still have sympathy?

Lisa

 

[lawtonfogle]

If someone is masturbating to child porn...

Hold up! Where in the post I quoted where I said masturbation isn't an action did it state there was child porn involved. I was speaking when there isn't, being that child porn is oh.. what is it again... illegal.

, then, think about what you are okaying here. Someone had to make that film. They are not cartoon characters. They are real life children...

While I could go ahead and ignore the rest of the post (since as I stated I didn't state what you stated I stated... wow that's a lot of stating) but this brings up an interesting (and disturbing) point? What if it is drawn 'porn' (hentai) which only has fictional children in it? While that is very disturbing, is it wrong (remember, no children harmed in that)?

 

[Lisa0315]

Hold up! Where in the post I quoted where I said masturbation isn't an action did it state there was child porn involved. I was speaking when there isn't, being that child porn is oh.. what is it again... illegal.


While I could go ahead and ignore the rest of the post (since as I stated I didn't state what you stated I stated... wow that's a lot of stating) but this brings up an interesting (and disturbing) point? What if it is drawn 'porn' (hentai) which only has fictional children in it? While that is very disturbing, is it wrong (remember, no children harmed in that)?

I have been saying "acting upon it" all along. Acting upon it either means molesting, child pornography, or fantasizing about sex with a child.

As for drawings of children, to me, this is feeding the deviant desire. I do not know if you are a Christian, but Jesus defines lust as something that occurs in both body and mind. It can be in either/or. It does not have to harm anyone. It harms the person who is doing the lusting too.

Lisa

 

[yasic]

Lisa, for the past 2 pages, people have been trying to convince you that pedophiles who do NOT act upon their desires (Do not molest children, do not download child pornography, do not do any illegal acts) deserve sympathy.

I did not see anyone in this thread argue that we should show sympathy for pedophiles who do act upon their desires. Note, 'fantasysing' was not classified as acting upon.

I personally also believe that pedophiles who do not act upon their desires (in a physical way, it is ok for them to fantasize all they want) deserve sympathy. Ones who do... well don't leave them in a room alone with me.


As far as having fantasies... I cannot imagine what on earth would be wrong with those? A person can never get any sexual satisfaction from life, so he resorts to the next best thing- imagination. Nobody is harmed and the person get a small bit of pleasure...

 

[lawtonfogle]

I have been saying "acting upon it" all along. Acting upon it either means molesting, child pornography, or fantasizing about sex with a child.

As for drawings of children, to me, this is feeding the deviant desire. I do not know if you are a Christian, but Jesus defines lust as something that occurs in both body and mind. It can be in either/or. It does not have to harm anyone. It harms the person who is doing the lusting too.

Lisa

Yes, I am a Christian, and I do personally feel that lust of any form is wrong... but here I speaking on a bit of a different scale than what is right and wrong for me...

Here, let me try to convey it. First off, the Bible does not state that sex with a (or between) child(ren) is wrong (assuming they have been married).

Second, Jesus states that lust = adultery. So while fantasizing about a child is wrong under this, exactly how does this make fantasizing about anything fictional wrong (now remember, I personally think it is)?

Thirdly (and a bit off the the side), I fully believe that if something isn't a sin listed in the Bible, but you think it is, and you do said 'sin', then you have sinned. If you truly think that singing 'Old McDonald' while hopping on one foot is a sin, and you then sing 'Old McDonald' while hopping on one foot, then you have sinned even if the other 100 people who sung 'Old McDonald' while hopping on one foot didn't sin.

Fourthly, just because I think something is morally wrong doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. God gave us the power to make bad choices, so I think we shouldn't remove that power from others. We should tell them it is wrong and disapprove of it, but unless it harms others it should be allowed (this is a bit simplified, so there may be loop holes built into this statement).

So... while child pornography and molesting a child and fantasizing are wrong morally, only the first two are illegal.

 

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, for the past 2 pages, people have been trying to convince you that pedophiles who do NOT act upon their desires (Do not molest children, do not download child pornography, do not do any illegal acts) deserve sympathy.

I did not see anyone in this thread argue that we should show sympathy for pedophiles who do act upon their desires.

I do not believe that there are pedophiles who do not act upon their desires.

After my niece was molested, I had a reason to prepare a presentation on teenage sex offenders. What I learned in my research is that pedophilia is not unlike a drug or alcohol addiction. There simply is no cure for it.

Give me a second and I will see what I can find to support this assertion. My research was done some 15 years ago when the girls were six years old.

Lisa

 

[yasic]

I do not believe that there are pedophiles who do not act upon their desires.

Thats a very bold statement. Considering the sheer numbers of pedophiles in the world, to think that there are none is just wrong. I also do not see how an attraction to children will result in a person being immoral.

I mean, you might as well say "I do not believe there are any adults out there who do not steal because they all are tempted."

After my niece was molested, I had a reason to prepare a presentation on teenage sex offenders. What I learned in my research is that pedophilia is not unlike a drug or alcohol addiction. There simply is no cure for it.

I also have a lot of sympathy for alcoholics who do not drink. A close friend of mine is such (If she drink any amount, no matter how minute, she will most likely end up wasted and alcohol was something that was ruining her life. She has been sober for 5 years now and never even touches drink anymore. I see plentiful reason to show her sympathy as long as she chooses to stay sober.



Also, I did quite a bit of editing on that post, so please re-read it if you can.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I do not believe that there are pedophiles who do not act upon their desires.

After my niece was molested, I had a reason to prepare a presentation on teenage sex offenders. What I learned in my research is that pedophilia is not unlike a drug or alcohol addiction. There simply is no cure for it.

Give me a second and I will see what I can find to support this assertion. My research was done some 15 years ago when the girls were six years old.

Lisa

I don't know of a cure either, then again I don't know of a cure for cancer either... doesn't mean there isn't and that we shouldn't look for it.

 

[Lisa0315]

http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-social-assistance/262277-1.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002317-2,00.html

Two good articles that speak of pedophila as incurable and must be treated with both therapy and libido inhibiting drugs. Without treatment, they WILL molest.

Lisa

 

[lawtonfogle]

Thats a very bold statement. Considering the sheer numbers of pedophiles in the world, to think that there are none is just wrong. I also do not see how an attraction to children will result in a person being immoral.

I mean, you might as well say "I do not believe there are any adults out there who do not steal because they all are tempted."


I also have a lot of sympathy for alcoholics who do not drink. A close friend of mine is such (If she drink any amount, no matter how minute, she will most likely end up wasted and alcohol was something that was ruining her life. She has been sober for 5 years now and never even touches drink anymore. I see plentiful reason to show her sympathy as long as she chooses to stay sober.



Also, I did quite a bit of editing on that post, so please re-read it if you can.

Or even is someone in spite (or as a very cruel joke) slipped her some unaware.


Thinking about that... is there a law which says that slipping someone alcohol is illegal. If not, there needs to be one, at least in the case of those like your friend.

 

[yasic]

I do not know if there is a law, but I am pretty sure there is.

It would not be slipping alcohol, but rather something along the lines of "manipulating an individual to preform dangerous acts to oneself or others without consent"

 

[yasic]

Lisa, the first article you showed clearly states that there are pedophiles who have not taken any illegal actions.

This is in the second paragraph of page 2

Although many pedophiles fail to seek professional help because they enjoy their sexual lifestyle, some (even those who have only fantasized about sexually abusing a child) are terrified to seek help because of embarrassment and fear of social and legal repercussions. emphasis mine

Having read the rest of the article, I did not find any indication or hint that all pedophiles chose to act upon their desires.

Give me a few more min for your second article.

 

[cantata]

http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-social-assistance/262277-1.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002317-2,00.html

Two good articles that speak of pedophila as incurable and must be treated with both therapy and libido inhibiting drugs. Without treatment, they WILL molest.

Lisa

Did you actually read the articles you posted? The first one says that paedophilia is usually treatable. And read this extract from the second article:

"Other studies that look back over longer periods--five to 10 years--find higher percentages of pedophiles who strike again, as high as 58% for those who refuse treatment. Such disparities highlight how uncertain the study of pedophilia is, but even the higher figure belies the popular notion that if a pedophile is allowed to go free, he will almost always molest again. "It's very easy to say, 'Throw away the key,'" says Berlin. "But many of these people are tortured by these temptations, and they are relieved that we can do something for them."" (Emphases mine.)

So yes, these people need help, and the point is that many feel remorse and those who accept treatment are likely to be helped by it. And you have inadvertently proved that not every paedophile - not even every paedophile previously convicted of a sexual offence - abuses children. You've proved yourself absolutely wrong. If 42% of paedophiles, with previous convictions, who have refused treatment, don't reoffend, then think what the percentage of all paedophiles in the world don't offend at all. Remember, this is drawn from the sources that you provided.

 

[yasic]

The second article beings by stating that about 4% of the population are pedophiles (paragraph 3 page 1), so if it is correct, then are you saying 4% of all living adults have at one point or another molested a child... that each of the 100 million pedophiles over the age of 30 has chosen to molest and none were able to keep their urges to themselves?

Once again, having read the whole article, I did not find a single line that said that all pedophiles will molest or anything hinting at it.

 

[DeathMagus]

I think the popularity of loli (Drawn/animated sexual depictions of children) would demonstrate that there are plenty of pedophiles out there who don't act upon their desires. I personally am all for it - since it's one of the few legal ways (in the US) for them to enjoy sexuality, without harming anybody.

 

[cantata]

I think the popularity of loli (Drawn/animated sexual depictions of children) would demonstrate that there are plenty of pedophiles out there who don't act upon their desires. I personally am all for it - since it's one of the few legal ways (in the US) for them to enjoy sexuality, without harming anybody.

Agreed.

Pornography produced without harming any children - i.e. drawn or computer-generated pornography - is, I would tentatively suggest, a useful outlet for those who are only attracted to children. It could also be useful for therapeutic purposes.

 

[Lisa0315]

Did you actually read the articles you posted? The first one says that paedophilia is usually treatable. And read this extract from the second article:

"Other studies that look back over longer periods--five to 10 years--find higher percentages of pedophiles who strike again, as high as 58% for those who refuse treatment. Such disparities highlight how uncertain the study of pedophilia is, but even the higher figure belies the popular notion that if a pedophile is allowed to go free, he will almost always molest again. "It's very easy to say, 'Throw away the key,'" says Berlin. "But many of these people are tortured by these temptations, and they are relieved that we can do something for them."" (Emphases mine.)

So yes, these people need help, and the point is that many feel remorse and those who accept treatment are likely to be helped by it. And you have inadvertently proved that not every paedophile - not even every paedophile previously convicted of a sexual offence - abuses children. You've proved yourself absolutely wrong. If 42% of paedophiles, with previous convictions, who have refused treatment, don't reoffend, then think what the percentage of all paedophiles in the world don't offend at all. Remember, this is drawn from the sources that you provided.

Treatable, not curable which is what I said.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

The second article beings by stating that about 4% of the population are pedophiles (paragraph 3 page 1), so if it is correct, then are you saying 4% of all living adults have at one point or another molested a child... that each of the 100 million pedophiles over the age of 30 has chosen to molest and none were able to keep their urges to themselves?

Once again, having read the whole article, I did not find a single line that said that all pedophiles will molest or anything hinting at it.

Nor was that the purpose of the articles I cited. They were to show that it is not curable and without treatment they will molest and molest and molest. They will not stop on their own. Most of the treatments involve chemical reductions in their libido.

Lisa

 

[cantata]

Treatable, not curable which is what I said.

You also claimed that all paedophiles molest children. Clearly, they don't. Not even all untreated paedophiles do. In fact, 42% of untreated, convicted paedophiles do not molest children.