babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Understanding the Pedophiles Among Us

166 replies [Last post]

Comments

kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Fidel wrote:

Not all pedophiles act on their physical attractions to children.

I am not sure what your point is. Not all people who fantasize about killing their boss actually do it.  If I obsess about murdering someone I will be exhibiting signs of a mental illness.  If I obsess about murder and then shoot someone I become a murderer.  If I obsessively fantasize about children I am a exhibiting signs of the DSM definition of pedophile and if I act on those fantasizes including looking at pictures of sexual abuse then I become a sexual abuser. 

"Minor attraction" is to me the same as dreaming about murder.  Anyone who gives either more than fleeting thoughts should think about seeking mental health advice.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Ghislaine wrote:

Fidel, pedophiles have their basic rights: the right to a fair trial, and if convicted the right to humane treatment in prison. 

I worked in child welfare and I am well aware that most sexual abusers are relatives. I am also well aware they often get off due to children scared to testify or not enough evidence. Children can at least get removed from these people's care based on the "balance of probabilities", but to lock them up requires evidence meeting the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria. So these children have to go to foster care, go through the trauma of testifying against their abuser and then know that they walked free. Don't tell me that they do not have their rights.

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I was saying that it appears some of us in this very thread aren't happy about the fact that people who are attracted to minors are able to seek professional help to deal with their issues. And keep in mind that we are talking about real human beings with real problems and not animals. They have certain rights up to the point when violating the law, and even after they have violated the rights of children they still have basic human rights. Or at least, in democratic countries they continue possessing certain rights.

Anyway, does anyone have anything new to add now that we've established that not all pedophiles are necessarily convicted child abusers? Does anyone feel less comfortable with not knowing who among them might have abnormal thoughts toward children? Does everyone believe that they would speak out to prevent or stop child abuse if they suspect it might be happening?

ETA:

If, in the future, there are medical or technical ways of determining whether someone has recurring thoughts of whatever, from sexualizing children to plotting to rob banks to avoiding paying taxes legally owed the government, should future thought police be able to arrest people in the name of crime prevention? Will future Pre-Crime Police always arrest the right person?   


ryanw
Offline
Joined: May 24 2012

people like science that works. They grow up and climb aboard; seeking to further the research that they feel is important and making progress

theres not alot of health care professsionals lining up to trial new treatments for pedophilia because the existing treatments available today do not meet alot of new researchers thresholds for worthwhile continuance. People have tried; there has been varying attempts over 50 years, IIRC without looking up various studies I think they can get 10~% of candidates to abstain from inappropriate conduct and that doesn't really sublimate the sexual drive to a positive direction

 

 


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

spande wrote:
Its curious how not a single person in this thread wanted to ask pedophiles about pedophilia. In a discussion about pedophilia, the only ones that are always missing are pedophiles. Not a single word from a pedophile. Everything is discussed and "analyzed" by heterosexuals, for heterosexuals, quoting heterosexuals. Pedophiles are the only ones not invited to the discussion. Which is of course, pretty crazy. Its like discussing homosexuality without inviting gays to the discussion.

What are you talking about, spande?

I mean I have heard that little diversion often enough, but the door's open as far as I can see.


ryanw
Offline
Joined: May 24 2012

spande wrote:

(Plus, the word "sexualizing" implies that children arent already sexual beings)

this quote reads like that book from earlier in the thread about matter of fact statements that suddenly become a green light for abuse of power, perhaps someone is overlooking that the requirement for interactions between those sexual beings is that the participants be on equal terms

these laws seem to be there for a good reason


Ghislaine
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2008

I wonder how long spande will be around? 


kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

I think we need to start a thread called understanding the misogynists among us.  Then we could have a feel good talk about how hating women is just a normal part of mankind and thus not really a problem.   This thread had attracted the kind of attention that one can expect.

As for Spande I would hope his expiry date includes the year 2012.


Tommy_Paine
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2001

I read this article a few days ago.  What strikes me about this article and so much of the debate about this issue is nothing seems to be said about those who are in a position to do something about abuse, but either do nothing or worse, assist the perpetrator.

It's not often the justice system goes after those people.  And this is why we see such horrific cases.  It should not shock us that pedophiles gravitate to occupations where they are in trust and around children.  I don't fault, for example, the Catholic Church because pedophiles look to the Priesthood because it offers them cover and victims.  A good many institutions face the same problems, whether it's Scouting, or children's sports, or even as we know from Cornwall, our own justice system.

What's unforgivable is when those institutions rally around the perpetrator in order to "protect" the institution-- I suppose.  A faulty supposition on their part when it eventually just sullies the institution further as the truth will out.  Insistance on that line of "protection" after a while has me wondering how a bona fide pedophile ring would operate differently than the way they do.

I believe if we paid more attention (not just in terms of criminal prosecution, but also understanding just why that happens)  as to why people who aren't pedophiles look the other way would be something that would effect the problem more in the short term while we await better understanding of the treatments of perpetrators themselves.

 


Kaitlin McNabb
Offline
Joined: Oct 19 2011

Hi everyone, this conversation is sensitive in nature and being moderated as such.

Spande has been removed from this conversation for his offensive comments and violations of babble policy. He contributions were unnecessary and completely out of line, adding nothing to the conversation. Apologies to those who had to read his tripe.

This thread will remain open because those of you who remain in the conversation seem to have agreed upon the way to discuss this article and sensitive issues.


Kaitlin McNabb
Offline
Joined: Oct 19 2011

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think we need to start a thread called understanding the misogynists among us.  Then we could have a feel good talk about how hating women is just a normal part of mankind and thus not really a problem. 

guh. no please. moderating is tough enough. Cry


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

wtf??????????


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Kaitlin McNabb wrote:

guh. no please. moderating is tough enough. Cry

Case in point....

Though when the banned won't stay banned it might also be time to call pedobear.

 


kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Bye coffe3 aka Spande. I wish I could say it was nice getting to know you but I can't.

 


oldgoat
Offline
Joined: Jul 27 2001

For those who may have noticed, coffe5 has also come and gone.  'twould be appreciated if people flag these things as soon as they see them, they will be gone faster.  Thanks


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

I think it's the same troll. Best to not feed it.

 


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Halq’emeylem wrote:

You sick little fuck! As someone whose family has a terrible history of sexual abuse your being allowed to post on this site is absolutely disgusting, and shame on rabble.ca for allowing it.

Just flag the post as offensive. That's what the button is for. If you think "rabble.ca" approves every post before it's posted, you are very mistaken. Maybe read post #44 for guidance.

I support rabble.ca, financially and politically and in any way I can, and I personally don't believe it has anything whatsoever to be ashamed about.

 


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

martin_juarez wrote:
There is no possible way to have a discussion about pedophilia, without letting pedophiles talk.

I agree, with the correction I made to your post.

Took at look at the B4UACT site, but not quite sure what it means for pedophiles to have a goal of "living life fully, but within the law", so I'd be curious about that.

Not sure I agree with your post in the other thread distinguishing between pedophiles and "heterosexuals". 

 


ERik Ar
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2012

Close the fucking box Pandora.  


Ghislaine
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2008

Flagged all of martin juarez's posts. I am assuming he is the same as the other 2 incarnations that were banned. 


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

i wanna know if rabble can give this person's IP address to the RCMP...

'cause it's obvious theres no respect of any type of boundaries. not too big a leap to believe he's in active pedophilia mode.

i just wanna puke.


Ghislaine
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2008

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


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

i've been all over the map deciding which.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

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
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

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
Offline
Joined: May 24 2012

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


ERik Ar
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2012

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

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
Offline
Joined: Oct 19 2011

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

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
Offline
Joined: Oct 19 2011

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.

 


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments