Understanding the Pedophiles Among Us

167 posts / 0 new
Last post
theleftyinvestor

Goggles Pissano wrote:

I believe that it is seriously misguided to focus on the biological reasons for paedophilia.  The biological focus implies that men are somehow incapable of controlling their sexual urges.  Therefore, we need to understand why paedophiles become aroused by children so that we can remedy these arousals. We must never expect men to somehow control their urges nor to behave responsibly when confronted with these urges.

Of course men need to behave ethically, and fostering a culture in which they do so is a key pillar of preventing abuse. I don't think you'll find much disagreement on that point here. It's just that if you happen to be sexually wired in such a way that your desires could always be satisfied responsibly, then it's not much of a challenge.

If you're somehow wired to be attracted to people you can't ever ethically act on your desires with, then it's a battle, not just a life lesson.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

theleftyinvestor wrote:

If you're somehow wired to be attracted to people you can't ever ethically act on your desires with, then it's a battle, not just a life lesson.

Wired to rape children is a ludicrous idea IMO. 

Sorry judge I am wired to steal and really you only caught me planning the bank heist not actually doing it yet so whats the big deal?

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:

If you're somehow wired to be attracted to people you can't ever ethically act on your desires with, then it's a battle, not just a life lesson.

Wired to rape children is a ludicrous idea IMO. 

Sorry judge I am wired to steal and really you only caught me planning the bank heist not actually doing it yet so whats the big deal?

What if pedophilia is a genetic disorder established before birth? There are more than 4000 diseases known to affect people that are caused by single defective genes. Just because big pharma has pocketed many billions of dollars in profits over the last 30 years doesn't mean they are very interested in spending much of it on basic R&D into human biology in order to find cures. Big pharma has been laughing all the way to the bank alongside banksters themselves.

Goggles Pissano

Fidel wrote:

 

What if pedophilia is a genetic disorder established before birth?

Yes, I can see the court arguments following this wonderful scientific discovery. 

"I'm sorry for raping.  I simply have a genetic predisposition for molesting little children, therefore I am not responsible for what I do." 

It sure beats the "I was too drunk to remember" defence.

Fidel wrote:
It's just that if you happen to be sexually wired in such a way that your desires could always be satisfied responsibly, then it's not much of a challenge.

Again, the biological focus implies that men are not capable of assuming personal responsibility for their sexual arousals and that we shouldn't expect anything more from them either. I believe that males in general have been culturally pampered to feel entitled to do whatever pleases them sexually at the moment and to show no regard for the consequenses of their actions. 

And NO, all men are not dangerous rapists.

Fidel

FYI Goggles you quoted leftyinvestor and attributed his comment as mine.

And I never said that having genetic predisposition to a disorder should translate to a get out of jail free card. That is not what I said.

Goggles wrote:
Again, the biological focus implies that men are not capable of assuming personal responsibility for their sexual arousals and that we shouldn't expect anything more from them either. I believe that males in general have been culturally pampered to feel entitled to do whatever pleases them sexually at the moment and to show no regard for the consequenses of their actions.

The "biological focus" is meant to suggest that there may be underlying factors contributing to a human condition, and that is all.  And if science ever does reach the the point where we can engineer genetic traits of unborn infants, embryos or whatever, then people who will no doubt continue committing these crimes would not have a leg to stand on in future courts of law.  I can see it all now...

"Sorry, judge, but my client's mother couldn't afford to pay for GE before he was born, and so therefore you must consider this when sentencing him!"

Judge: That's no excuse. We have full socialized medicine for many years now, and your genetic report says you suffer no such predisposition. You are 110 years-old and should know better than this. TEN YEARS! </Gavel smack>

Goggles Pissano

Did I Fidel? Oops! I am sincerely very sorry for that.  I just woke up when I wrote it, and I am sometimes not all there.

I am not saying that a biological basis gives predators a get out of jail free card.

I am merely arguing that we should NOT be focusing on WHY a person gets sexually attracted to people, but rather to take responsibility for their sexual attraction, and this approach applies to a much broader cross section of men.  Attitudes about consent need to change, and all men and women need to change the way they rear their children in order for this attitude of entitlement and irresponsibility to stop.

It is simply easier and more convenient to microanalyze the situation rather than for all people to collectively look at themselves and examine the ways they inadvertantly feed the problem with the gender based values they instill in their children from the time of infancy.

Fidel

I agree that people need to raise their kids to respect life and the dignity of human beings. And we should keep in mind that this thread was posted in the science and technology forum.

I am merely suggesting that some time in the future we will know more about the causes of criminal behaviour. I can't wait for the day they discover genetic predisposition for lying, kick-back and graft in would be politicians and the like. I can see it all now...

"Thank you mister speaker. This GE report says the member for Calgary South is a pathological liar." 

jas

nm.

theleftyinvestor

Goggles Pissano wrote:
I am merely arguing that we should NOT be focusing on WHY a person gets sexually attracted to people, but rather to take responsibility for their sexual attraction, and this approach applies to a much broader cross section of men.

On the point that people should take responsibility for and ownership of their sexual attraction - you will not find much disagreement on this forum. And it's insulting when you keep throwing down arguments about excusing abusive behaviour - this is not what anyone here is promoting.

On the point of why a person gets certain sexual attractions - I will have to disagree with you there. I think an important part of preventing abuse is to come at the causes from as many angles as can possibly be helpful. 

The fact is, there are currently men out there who have attractions to children and have never touched a child. Some of these men are at risk of harming children in the future. Do we tell them to take responsibility for their attractions and their actions? Yes. If that's *all* we do, though, could we be neglecting a responsibility to reduce harm to children as much as possible?

Goggles Pissano

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Goggles Pissano wrote:
I am merely arguing that we should NOT be focusing on WHY a person gets sexually attracted to people, but rather to take responsibility for their sexual attraction, and this approach applies to a much broader cross section of men.

On the point that people should take responsibility for and ownership of their sexual attraction - you will not find much disagreement on this forum. And it's insulting when you keep throwing down arguments about excusing abusive behaviour - this is not what anyone here is promoting.

I have never once said that people who are interested in finding a biological basis for pedophilia to help understand the nature of pedophilia are excusing abusive behaviour.  I have been arguing that it is a misguided focus for two different reasons. 

One, on a medical or psychological level, psychiatrists love to pathologize all behaviours they perceive to be deviations from the norm. Norms are subjective and relative and they usually end up being issues the majority of decision makers deem to be different from themselves. While almost all people deplore and despise the idea of adults feeling sexually attracted to children, the medical establishment has made horrific mistakes in the past by medicalizing behaviours they felt were unpopular, and there are no safeguards in place to prevent people from getting hurt in the future. When you start discussing issues like genetic defects, this plays right into the moral and ethical issues surrounding eugenics.  We know about Hitler's ideas, and Alberta doctors forcefully sterilizing First Nations women in mental institutions.  Peoples' sexual attractions are very personal and diverse, and they are a part of a person's connection with their own soul. Medical science has no right to try to tamper with and destroy something so important and human as their sexual identity.  In fact, I believe that it is evil to do so, even for something as abhorrent and reprehensible as child sexual attractions.

Two, there is the issue of personal accountability. I admit that I have had a lot of trouble trying to articulate this issue properly.  I believe that child molesters are the direct result of culturally created attitudes of male entitlement. Sex to some is about impulsive urges, and instant gratification for those urges. It is about putting ones own needs ahead of the health and welfare of others and feeling totally entitled to do so.  Sex then is not about mutual sharing, but is reduced to issues of violence and power over others, using people for your own instant gratification.  For some, children are simply safe, easy, and expedient, and that alone could be enticing.

We need to start to teach our children to not use sex for selfish purposes. Boys need to be taught not to objectify women.  We need to try to erradicate gender stereotypes at an early age.  I believe that pedophilia is a symptom of deeper sociological problems, and it is one that we are constantly feeding.  I belive that it is only when we learn to weed out the mysogynistic and patriarchal attitudes in men that we will start to see a decline in the rates of child molestation.

It is sometimes hard to take hard and honest looks at ourselves. It is so much easier to medically label things and pass it off onto other people to deal with, ones with very few credentials to be engaging in these endeavours.

Again, I am not saying that all men are child molesters.  I am not saying that men who engage in dominant roleplay during sex with adults are child molesters.  I believe that child molestation stems from sexual selfishness, and the need and thrill for power over others when sexually aroused.

theleftyinvestor

At this point we're going around in circles on the same few fine points so I'm bowing out of this conversation. I would prefer to go a full week without having to talk about pedophilia anymore :)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Esther Pinder wrote:

I'm glad for you Rebecca that you've found someone special. I'm not sure the feminism forum is the best place for discussing male-on-male sexual assault, but I do have compassion for those survivors.

This post is from the rape in Syria thread.  I promised not to post again in that thread so I will not. However I had to find somewhere to respond to this wrong headed statement.

Pedophilia has nothing to do with male on male sexual assault.  I think that pedophilia is a proper topic for the feminist forum no matter whether the victims are young girls or young men.

The above statement not only misunderstands pedophilia but it comes very close to comparing homosexual behavior to pedophilia and that is not allowed in any forum.

 

Goggles Pissano

KP1951,

I am very sorry you felt you had to leave the Syrian feminist thread.  IMO, you were always welcome and will always be welcome there.

I personally feel that there is a general misunderstanding of what pedophilia really is.  While people remain conspicuously silent on girls being raped.  I think the Rehtaeh Parsons case is a clear example of the level of community indifference to what happens to girls when they are sexually assaulted, no one in power seems to take the matter seriously until the international media get involved and expose this indifference.  However, people get angry when boys are victimized by older men because they "assume" that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same thing, and I feel that their angry reactions are being homophobic rather than genuinely concerned about the welfare of the children involved. I could be wrong, but that is how I take it.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that homophobia also results in an under reporting of pedophilia involving male victims because most young boys fear being called gay as much as young women fear being called a slut. The last thing I wanted to do was tell my buddies that I had "let" a man abuse me. As it turned out I now think that at least one of my buddies experienced the same thing from the same person. My abuser was Father Hod Marshall of the Basilian Order and he has been convicted of serial sexual assault in a criminal court of law.

Rape is not sex and pedophilia involving a man and a boy is rape not male on male violence.  I disagree with the person who posted that but after the cheap shot about mansplaining it was either get into a pissing match with her or leave the conversation.  The FF is no place for men to have pissing contests with women so I am done in that thread.

Goggles Pissano

KP1951,

I understand your anger and frustration at what was said in the other thread.  To put a different context into "male on male violence", some people who were severely violated in their past are not able to say the "R" word, or if it occured in their own family, the "i" word.  Some people after therapy are eventually able to say those words, and some people are never able to use those words in their vocabulary ever again.  Some can use those words without difficulty, but others are never able to.

When I read those words, I immediately thought that she is at a stage in her life where she is able to only talk in vague generalities. Maybe she didn't come from that angle, but that is how I interpreted what she wrote. I don't believe that she was trying to downplay the seriousness of your abuse.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

From the ages of 13 to 39 I did not tell anyone about my experience.  I find that speaking about it openly is itself a healing process.  I don't know about intent but she also said that all men are abusers and it came in what appeared to be a response to my posting in the thread.  So for me the feminism forum is not a safe place it is now the least safe space on babble to speak about my experience of being sexually assaulted. After all I am just a dick swinging male who is likely an abuser.

Pages

Topic locked