Understanding the Pedophiles Among Us

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.

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

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 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?

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.

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

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.

Kaitlin McNabb wrote:

creates a non-safe space for conversation.

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

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.

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 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.

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...

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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

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)

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.

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.