Understanding the Pedophiles Among Us

167 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ghislaine

I was thinking the same thing quizzical. I am wondering if he is legit thought or just an s-disturber. 

quizzical

i've been all over the map deciding which.

jas

Unless Spande suddenly learned to communicate with more courtesy and rationality, I don't think martin_juarez is the same poster. 

Why the pitchforks, guys? Am I missing something? Nothing in martin_juarez's post is in breach of Babble policy.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I consider protecting children from abuse at the hands of adults as a fundamental human right.  Children have the right to be treated with respect and not be drooled over by perverts who think their perversion is fucking normal.  Normalizing having sexual fantasies about children is akin to normalizing rape fantasies because sex with children is sexual abuse.

ryanw

I must endevour to report anyones activity to the RCMP because I think "it's obvious"

ERik Ar

Yes, sex with children is NOT a 'natural orientation', as this creep keeps insisting, but is, by definition, rape.   And yes, someone should send his IPA to the cops. 

jas

But that's already been established here.

I am for the moment willing to accept the premise that 'pedophile' does not necessarily mean 'child molester' (however would argue that adult child molesters must necessarily be pedophiles). I am interested in hearing from pedophiles who are capable of courteous and rational discussion why they want us to accept this premise, and how they propose to live fulfilling lives without harming children; what evidence they have that pedophilia is a natural orientation rather than a response to having experienced sexual abuse themselves as children, and why they consider themselves something other than homo or heterosexual.

I think that child sexual abuse is a social problem, and if pedophilia is at the root of it, then it is encumbent on all of us to allow discussion on this problem. It also facilitates understanding and healing. I do not think it is a helpful position to merely vilify and scapegoat pedophiles, as if it's a problem that has nothing to do with ourselves, and without attempting to understand what causes this inclination. I am speaking as one of the 1 in 3 (and 1 in 4, for males) who experienced sexual abuse as a child.

 

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Hi. The new 'troll' or whoever has been banned and all comments deleted included those quoted and responded to. I think it was a completely new one from the other and numerous incarnations of the previous. We have been debating closing this thread has not only conversation has quieted, but it is a magnet for trolls.

The newest one did violate babble policy with his posts and was therefore banned. As mentioned we do not approve comments before posting, and moderate after the posts are online. 

Also, please refrain from attacking each other and using offensive language directed at each other. 

jas

Kaitlin McNabb wrote:

The newest one did violate babble policy with his posts and was therefore banned. 

Not to make your job harder, Kaitlin, but what part of his post violated Babble policy?

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

No problem Jas, and it is in your bounds to ask.

Unfortunately, since having deleted the comments I don't have access to the exact quotes, but my moderating was based on (1) the amount of flags and reasoning by other users active on this flag and (2) I found the intent and language to fall under the category of offensive, provoking conflict, and objectionable.

 

jas

Thanks Kaitlin. I certainly found that with spande's posts, but did not see that with the latest poster. So, difference of opinion, and I know decisions have to be made in moderating, and that was yours. Fair enough.

6079_Smith_W

I thought about that too jas.

Somehow I don't think someone who wanted to talk about the subject in good faith, with the object of reaching understanding would come on quite so much like a troll.

...or double down on it after being banned.

To turn it around, I don't think anyone here has said anything against someone who has those kind of feelings or has even committed a crime, and seeks treatment for it. Nor has anyone said that they shouldn't be allowed to speak here. So again.... smells like a troll to me.

 

 

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Yes. The same person had also taken to spamming another board on the same topic with offensive messages as well.

 

Slumberjack

In the absence of community based remedies to this particular menace, which are generally frowned upon anyway, there's only the police, psychiatry, and the prison industry available to deal with a problem that is well beyond the scope of this type of message board.

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Saying as myself and not "moderator", the presence of a user declaring themself as a pedophile greatly changes the conversation from theory to reality and also creates a non-safe space for conversation.

jas

In response to Slumberjack: I see child sexual abuse as almost pandemic in our society, if not others, and I would really like to know what causes and perpetuates it. Not sure why a discussion about possible causes is so difficult for Babblers. It's certainly not a progressive position to pretend that, rhetoric aside, only freaks and weirdos engage in it, when we can see tolerance and promotion of it in popular culture and advertising.

Now, I don't know for sure that healing was this poster's intent, but we do allow all kinds of other self revelation and confession-type discussion here, in the spirit of understanding and community healing. We are effectively shutting down that voice right now. 

jas

Kaitlin McNabb wrote:

creates a non-safe space for conversation.

But I certainly see this as a valid point and well expressed.

6079_Smith_W

Perhaps I guessed wrong jas, but my hunch is that the person making those posts was not in fact a pedophile, but someone with way too much time on his hands who just wanted to troll and wind people up.

The only missed opportunity was him being able to get more people all bothered and upset and puzzling about how to respond.

And again, if we are wrong that person certainly has the opportunity fo PM the mods and set the record straight. But the line he was pitching just didn't have the ring of truth to me.

 

Slumberjack

jas wrote:
In response to Slumberjack: I see child sexual abuse as almost pandemic in our society, if not others, and I would really like to know what causes and perpetuates it.

I don’t really know what causes it.  Perhaps it's an all consuming and dysfunctional hatred for society that somehow channels itself into a desire to attack the most vulnerable citizens out of a twisted sense of revenge.  Perhaps it's when the traditional expectations that come with patriarchal control are unrealized or are thought to be stymied in some way by something or some demographic.  Instead of becoming immersed in self hatred as a result of failure in that regard, the impulses are directed toward controlling others, which oddly serves to affirm one's place within what the subject perceives as being the natural order of things, which is to be in control of something...anything.  Apparently in the case of a pedophile, the more harm it does to the individual represented within society as the future, and the more condemnation one is able to garner, with much more of this sickness being discovered these days, the better it is, because it somehow re-validates the original hatred of a society that at some point or another has already categorized the subject as a failure in some respect.  School shooters appear to function on a similar level.  In a society such as ours, the make or break expectations are already quite high, especially so as competition for jobs and resources become more acute.  But people who typically don’t react well to changing circumstances are generally not inclined to place the blame on an ideology they’ve become dependent upon for the supposed benefits it has on offer.  What we see is that they will become even more entrenched in their beliefs, which is the lazy approach in comparison with self examination and an honest reappraisal of what they believe in.  The result is that they are more inclined toward taking out their frustrations in some manner on certain elements of society, who more often than not have already been made victims of.

jas

No idea what you're saying here, SJ, sorry. Do you believe pedophilia is an isolated problem, shared only by a fringe population of deviants?

 

Serviam6

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Perhaps I guessed wrong jas, but my hunch is that the person making those posts was not in fact a pedophile, but someone with way too much time on his hands who just wanted to troll and wind people up.

The only missed opportunity was him being able to get more people all bothered and upset and puzzling about how to respond.

And again, if we are wrong that person certainly has the opportunity fo PM the mods and set the record straight. But the line he was pitching just didn't have the ring of truth to me.

 

I felt the same. It stuck me as an attempt to portray sincerity all the while twisting everything around. It was a lame attempt to get people upset and try to use some kind of faux logic. The very same when someone on a debate team is given an item to debate such as trying to argue that drinking and driving can be a good thing. I'm really impressed with the mods and members here.

Fidel

jas wrote:

In response to Slumberjack: I see child sexual abuse as almost pandemic in our society, if not others, and I would really like to know what causes and perpetuates it.

While child abuse does occur in families at all income levels, I believe the incident rate and poverty are strongly linked. 

Canada's child and family poverty rates stink compared to the same rates for a list of other rich countries. Our's is a corporate welfare and even conservative nanny state in many regards. That means the welfare of corporations and a handful few rich people is more than children who have no vote and are essentially without voices in the halls of power as far as our bought and paid-for stoogeaucracies in Ottawa and Toronto are concerned.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Fidel wrote:

While child abuse does occur in families at all income levels, I believe the incident rate and poverty are strongly linked. 

Very strong and troubling assertion. Please provide links to any studies you have that support this theory.

Slumberjack

jas wrote:
No idea what you're saying here, SJ, sorry. Do you believe pedophilia is an isolated problem, shared only by a fringe population of deviants? 

I don't know if any response on my part would fare any better than the last one.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So I gather you have none and are just engaged in poor bashing. I must remind you that poor bashing on babble is not allowed. It is my understanding that child abuse happens in families of all income levels.  I suspect it is reported more quickly when professionals see signs of it in poor families and not so much when dealing with families that look well off.  But even with that potential discrepancy I don't think the stats add up to your blame the poor gut feeling.

Quote:

Source of Income

Thirty-nine percent of child maltreatment investigations involved children in families that derived their primary income from full-time employment (Figure S-13). Thirty-six percent involved children from families that received social assistance or some other form of benefits, and an additional 10% involved children who lived in families relying on part-time employment/multiple jobs or seasonal employment. In 13% of child investigations the source of income was unknown by the investigating worker, and in 2% no reliable source of income was reported.

Substantiation rates ranged from 33% for cases in which the income source was unknown to 54% for cases in which no reliable source of income was identified by the investigating worker.

Fifty-seven percent of child investigations involved children living in rental accommodations (47% in private market rentals and 10% in rental units in a public housing complex). In 26% of investigations children lived in purchased homes, 6% in other accommodations, and 1% in shelters or hostels (see Table 7-6).

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQ...

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Fidel wrote:

While child abuse does occur in families at all income levels, I believe the incident rate and poverty are strongly linked. 

Very strong and troubling assertion. Please provide links to any studies you have that support this theory.

Coming right up...

 

Fidel

Not at all. Every good socialist will gladly explain to you that poverty and violence are strongly linked.

The Connection Between Poverty and Child Abuse, Neglect (USA 2010)

Quote:
High poverty rate is the single best predictor of child abuse and neglect – children who live in families with an annual income less than $15,000 are 22 times more likely to be abused or neglected.

Child Abuse & Neglect Understanding the relationship between neighborhood poverty and specific types of child maltreatment, (USA1996)

Fast Facts: The social and economic conditions that produce poor health (CCPA, 2010)

Quote:
The effect of these social and economic conditions on children has been well documented. Raphael, for example, observes that children in poor families: “are more likely to experience greater incidence of a variety of illnesses, hospital stays, accidental injuries, mental health problems, lower school achievement and early dropout, family violence and child abuse, among others”

The Unheard Speak Out:Street Sexual Exploitation in Winnipeg (pdf, 2005)

Quote:
We found that there was no single reasonwhy a person becomes vulnerable tosexual exploitation; rather there are many.Common factors that emerged from theinterviews included:  poverty and survival, including homelessness; the legacyof residential schools, the member who was or is sexually exploited); substance dependency; and effects of low self-esteem, continuation of colonialism, and racism; lack of stabilityand being placed in multiple care homes;childhood abuse; gender discrimination,including discrimination against TwoSpirited/transgendered people; pimps and peer pressure; generational sexual exploitation (having a parent or family

You might not be a socialist, and so therefore you might not be very aware of the issues surrounding child abuse. But you can always try to learn new things. Learning can be fun, kropotkin.

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

75 It should be noted, however, that lone-parent families are also at higher risk of living in poverty, and that poverty, as opposed to familystructure, could be the factor placing these families at high risk of being reported for alleged maltreatment–see Source of Income section ofthis chapter, also see the following:

Chamberland C, Bouchard C, et al. Conduites abusives envers les enfants: Réalités canadiennes et americaines. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science 1986;8(4):391-412.

Drake B, Pandey S. Understanding the relationship between neighbourhood poverty and specific types of child maltreatment. Child Abuseand Neglect 1996;20(11): 1003-18.

Garbarino J, Sherman D. High-risk neighbourhoods and high-risk families: The human ecology of child maltreatment. Child Development1980;51(1):188-98.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQ...

And thank you for providing even more supporting evidence for my socialist theories.

Why don't you tell us what great businessmen Bill Vanderscam and his crooks and liars in the social credit government were. I think you might know that subject matter a lot better than this one.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So in a thread you started to help us understand pedophilia you have now linked it to poverty.   How doe that square with the idea that it is merely another sexual orientation.  Stats also show that gay men are better off than the average person while lesbians are poorer.  Any other great theories to tell us how poverty can affect a persons sexual orientation? In your world apparently poverty is the cause of pedophilia.  Quite the fantasy land.

Also Fidel please shut your pie hole and stop trying to call me a Socred.  You have personally insulted me about four or five times in your last two posts.  Do you really think such garbage actually bolsters your arguments or standing in this community.

Anyways Fidel why don't you stick to the thread topic you started? This thread is not about poverty being an indicator of vulnerability it is supposed to be about understanding your pedophile priests who are clearly not to blame for their actions.  Unless maybe you have hit on something Fidel.  It is the vow of poverty that causes priests to become child abusers.  Now it all makes sense since on paper priests are some of the "poorest" people in the country.

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Anyways Fidel why don't you stick to the thread topic you started? This thread is not about poverty being an indicator of vulnerability it is supposed to be about understanding your pedophile priests who are clearly not to blame for their actions.  Unless maybe you have hit on something Fidel.  It is the vow of poverty that causes priests to become child abusers.  Now it all makes sense since on paper priests are some of the "poorest" people in the country.

And I merely thought that you would have had enough broadcasting daily hatreds of Catholics in general in all those other threads allegedly expressing anger over pedophile priests? Apparently that anger for pedophile priests tends to spill over into hatred of all Catholics regardless of the actual thread topic.

I think your concern about the welfare of children is phony.

FYI the topic of discussion is understanding pedophiles and why sex abuse of children is as prevalent as it is. 

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Fidel, please don't use offensive language towards your fellow babblers. As old goat has mentioned, let's keep it on the higher plane please.

ryanw

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Anyways Fidel why don't you stick to the thread topic you started? This thread is not about poverty being an indicator of vulnerability

and yet... you demanded statistical proof to that end, you chose to address one line(and not the several which were uniquely on-topic) let's discuss 'poor bashing' and why not? you hadn't contributed anything up to this point in the thread its 'obvious' everyone should make way for Krop and what they want to talk about. american war machine here we come 

people can talk about ways to improve how scientific evidence is gathered; that discoveries of at-risk populations are helpful in strategically allocating your finite resources, and that that doesn't end the search; that we continue to press for new studies that will include needs by persons not yet identified

 

6079_Smith_W

Kaitlin McNabb wrote:

As old goat has mentioned, let's keep it on the higher plane please.

I'm trying.... but it's all I can do to stop myself from posting that line from the "Snakes on a Plane" movie.

 

 

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Kaitlin McNabb wrote:

As old goat has mentioned, let's keep it on the higher plane please.

I'm trying.... but it's all I can do to stop myself from posting that line from the "Snakes on a Plane" movie.

Quotes from S.O.A.P.= automatic ban

(kidding)

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks to the moderators for once again highlighting the important stuff and ensuring that Babble is a really inviting place. 

I'm not sure if this is meant with sincerity of sarcasm. Drop me or the other moderators a PM if needed please.

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So in a thread you started to help us understand pedophilia you have now linked it to poverty.   How doe that square with the idea that it is merely another sexual orientation.  Stats also show that gay men are better off than the average person while lesbians are poorer.  Any other great theories to tell us how poverty can affect a persons sexual orientation? In your world apparently poverty is the cause of pedophilia.  Quite the fantasy land.

You will not bait me with nonsensical gibberish. I have nothing against people of other sexual orientations. The Old Testament is obviously out of date when it describes eating shell fish and wearing clothes made of different fabrics as sinful. I am a Catholic, and Jesus said nothing of same sex relationships. And I oppose any other religionists, Catholics or otherwise, who would not allow those people the same basic human rights deserving of everyone else regardless of sexual orientation.

And so if we understand your POV, pedophilia is only a concern when Catholic priests are involved.

In your POV, only Catholic priests abuse children, and so that is why you are incapable of staying on-topic in this thread.

It would be false to say that poverty is the sole reason for pedophilia, but it is accurate to say, according to the experts you and I both referred to above, that child abuse is strongly linked to poverty. Child abuse includes a range of abuses including sexual abuse and exploitation. 

Apparently pedophilia is human condition in its own category. Poverty doesn't help vulnerable children to avoid pedophiles who act on their urges. Again there are some adults abusing children sexually today simply because they are available and easily exploited. Why are children so easily exploited? 

In addition to Catholic priests abusing children sexually and otherwise, what conditions might exist today that allow children to be abused by pedophiles and sexual predators in general? 

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

In addition to Catholic priests abusing children sexually and otherwise, what conditions might exist today that allow children to be abused by pedophiles and sexual predators in general? 

Institutions accustomed to domination and entitlement which value children, not as human beings, but only for the services they can render to the elites.

 

jas

Fidel wrote:

It would be false to say that poverty is the sole reason for pedophilia, but it is accurate to say, according to the experts you and I both referred to above, that child abuse is strongly linked to poverty.

None of these connections are ringing true for me either, Fidel. You yourself asked us upthread to understand that pedophilia does not necessarily equate with child sexual abuse, that we be able to understand the two issues separately, which I'm trying to do.

I'm not convinced that children in poverty are more at risk of a range of abuse, and I certainly don't think a connection has been established that they are more prone to sexual abuse specifically, and I think that would be a dangerous assumption to make. By the same token, nor are Catholic priests the only pedophiles in our society, but their particular institutional contexts (as Unionist has just pointed out) perhaps more easily allow for exploitation, so it happens there probably disproportionately to other social circumstances.

In any case, you yourself have said that this thread is about pedophilia (and its causes, presumably) and not about child sexual abuse specifically.

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Okay, this thread has been modified for language, personal attacks, coherency, and off-topic comments.

We are all aware of what is gone and why. The decision did not come lightly and that is why time was necessary. 

Let it be known that rabble does not permit the use of any offensive and aggressive language towards fellow babblers, and that babbler's new favourite f-word is not okay. Any antagonistic and hateful language towards fellow babblers will not be tolerated, and also, does nothing to add to the conversation or legitimacy of points.

This thread's topic is of a sensitive nature and everyone should take that into consideration when posting and refrain from attacking and provoking fellow babblers.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

jas wrote:

None of these connections are ringing true for me either, Fidel. You yourself asked us upthread to understand that pedophilia does not necessarily equate with child sexual abuse, that we be able to understand the two issues separately, which I'm trying to do.

I'm not convinced that children in poverty are more at risk of a range of abuse, and I certainly don't think a connection has been established that they are more prone to sexual abuse specifically, and I think that would be a dangerous assumption to make. By the same token, nor are Catholic priests the only pedophiles in our society, but their particular institutional contexts (as Unionist has just pointed out) perhaps more easily allow for exploitation, so it happens there probably disproportionately to other social circumstances.

In any case, you yourself have said that this thread is about pedophilia (and its causes, presumably) and not about child sexual abuse specifically.

Well said Jas.

shartal@rogers.com

This argument ignores that there is a difference between. " minor attracted feelings " and the intense drive to act on those feelings described by pedophillia. I am sexually attracted to a physical type of man but I do not live with a significant drive to act on that drive. One of my clients described the difference as "I always have the drive and the thoughts, the only thing I can do is insure that I cannot act on it".he takes medication that prevents him from getting an erection.

Feelings are not the same as drives and thoughts or fantasies are not the same as actions.

Fidel

[url=Garden">http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/12/23/child-sexual-abuse-must-step... State Topic: Child Sexual Abuse Must Step Out of the Shadows, Into the Light[/url]

njspotlight.com wrote:
A recent Sports Illustrated cover story focusing on young athletes subjected to child sexual abuse reminds us once again that the pernicious scourge of child sexual abuse continues to haunt the playing fields, playgrounds, and backrooms of our nation. (...)

Nevertheless, despite the absence of reports from those victims who do not disclose what happened to them, the data on frequency of child sexual abuse remains staggering. Adult retrospective studies show that one in four girls and one in six boys are sexually abused before the age of 18, meaning that more than 42 million adult survivors live in the United States today.

Quote:
Cumulative costs related to child sexual abuse are estimated at $23 billion annually in the United States.

Who pays the bills for this?

ryanw

Fidel wrote:

Quote:
Cumulative costs related to child sexual abuse are estimated at $23 billion annually in the United States.

Who pays the bills for this?

presumably anyone that can; and there are many that cannot.

Healthcare is supposed to be a river; where we share information with each other about the circumstances leading up to falling in it

and/or take meaningful steps to climb out or otherwise resist being pulled further downstream

I'd rather discuss the topic and put my effort into that conversation than trying to convince others that the conversation is 'important' and they should be in it to. I don't monologue what my words are supposed to say. People can read and decide for themselves.

and choose to continue despite of interruptions

 

Fidel

Canada 'Disneyland for pedophiles' Fleury wants laws beefed up

Theoren Fleury wrote:

The former Calgary Flame hopes to shore up support for the cause by walking from Toronto to Parliament Hill in Ottawa between May 14 and 23 next year, an event he's dubbed the Victor Walk.

"I believe that my real legacy isn't hockey but the fight against child sexual abuse."

And he was a fine hockey player in his time.

theleftyinvestor

I don't recall the source but I had heard an interesting theory of a biological basis for pedophilia... basically, most of us (with "healthy" sexual attractions) have some sort of filter going on in our brains that identifies family members, children and other people who we shouldn't be sexually attracted to, and shuts off our ability to be attracted to them. Non-attraction to children is not just something we choose... our bodies are actually programmed to make that decision for us. And then for some people, that filter is just not functional, so that even if it's rationally clear that it's wrong to act on those attractions, they are there nonetheless. I can't imagine the anguish someone would feel knowing they have deeply unethical attractions that most people don't have to struggle with.

This is not to say that anyone gets left off the hook... abusers are abusers. I don't know enough about this B4U-ACT organization, but I have heard that one barrier to getting treatment is that mandatory reporting laws can cause trouble even for people who have not acted on their attractions. I would certainly support finding some sort of balance that protects children while also allowing people to get treatment rather than be driven underground. If an adult man who's never touched a kid is caught with child porn, is society better served by sending him to do hard time, or by intervening with treatment? (not to mention the issues with mandatory minimum sentencing which can turn a teenage boy who receives a "sext" into a registered sex offender, but that is for another thread)

Serviam6

theleftyinvestor wrote:
(not to mention the issues with mandatory minimum sentencing which can turn a teenage boy who receives a "sext" into a registered sex offender, but that is for another thread)

I was calling for minimum sentencing in another thread. Could you explain what a sext is and how it gets someone a minimum sentence and sex offender status?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

theleftyinvestor wrote:

This is not to say that anyone gets left off the hook... abusers are abusers. I don't know enough about this B4U-ACT organization, but I have heard that one barrier to getting treatment is that mandatory reporting laws can cause trouble even for people who have not acted on their attractions. I would certainly support finding some sort of balance that protects children while also allowing people to get treatment rather than be driven underground. If an adult man who's never touched a kid is caught with child porn, is society better served by sending him to do hard time, or by intervening with treatment? (not to mention the issues with mandatory minimum sentencing which can turn a teenage boy who receives a "sext" into a registered sex offender, but that is for another thread)

I agree with most of what you say especially that we need to make sure that people who suffer from urges that are a mental health issue can access the services they need. Men who dream about rape should have access to mental health services. However I cannot agree with the child porn analogy.  Child pornography always involves the abuse of children and no matter where in the chain one inserts oneself one becomes an abuser.

voice of the damned

Serviam6 wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:
(not to mention the issues with mandatory minimum sentencing which can turn a teenage boy who receives a "sext" into a registered sex offender, but that is for another thread)

I was calling for minimum sentencing in another thread. Could you explain what a sext is and how it gets someone a minimum sentence and sex offender status?

This article should answer both your questions...

http://tinyurl.com/44r3cqd

6079_Smith_W

Plus there's another aspect of this - that it is not just about suppressing desires that are inherently innocent.

Like any other kind of rape or violation one of the root urges is to force one's own power on someone who is more vulnerable. In many cases it is passing on the violation and humiliation that abused people have themselves suffered.

So while I think it is important to understand and have compassion, I think it would be a big mistake to see this as something normal like any other desire that just needs to be kept under control.

 

shartal@rogers.com

In addition focusing on sentencing without long term therapy and support ignores the reality that every convicted person is eventually released. The rate of re offence , and trauma to new victims, is effected by the availability and partication in long term therapy and support

Pages

Topic locked