No offense Dan~, but I think that you’re wrong about this. If the whole thing was an inside job then it went way over the heads of the CIA and the FBI and suchlike.
Back to the title issue:
Again, no offence, but I think that you’re wrong about this. Chemical castration has, in limited trials, proven to be extremely effective at cutting the likelihood of re-offending in male pedophiles. I haven’t heard of any equivalent trial for females. news.com.au/perthnow/story/0 … 61,00.html
I heard a similar story from Holland on the BBC a while back but cannot find a link. You’ve probably got similar things being tested out in the US.
Known the enemy, and know the options you have with which to fight it. Then make a decision.
If you didn’t accuse me of being a liberal, then I apologise for over-reacting.
The thing is, I do believe you have to provide support if you wish to ban a political party and thus obstruct the democratic process. So, whilst you may believe that no support is necessary, I do. Can you provide support for your view, particularly against the arguments I’ve mentioned?
SIATD- I took a human sexuality course a few quarters back. Chemical castration for pedophiles was discussed in class. IIRC, courts weren’t exactly keen on it for two reasons: (1) weren’t sure of its effectiveness, yet, and (2) human rights issues (they would be asking for the sterility of another human being.
Sorry, that was not aimed at you. I just noticed a blank space at the bottom of my post and thought I would pop it in. I can see how it was misleading.
And our reply is: “We don’t agree with you. Fuck kids, go to jailâ€. Simple.
Do you honestly think you could be convinced that having sex with a 12 year-old is acceptable? And if not, why do you think that enough other people could be convinced so as to give this any social credence?
If this is the concern, then surely this is indicative of a ‘sickness’ in the society we live in.
Sex sells: fashion houses and glamour mags showcase young women who look sexually immature; ‘alcopops’ so that kids can get pissed too; young teens singing along to Britney (or whoever) about emotionless sexual encounters; kids having sex with kids and 11 year-olds getting pregnant. It’s not just ‘dirty old men’ (or women) that are abusing our kids…we all are.
And here is the problem.
If we can isolate a ‘perv’, then a child’s suffering is the most heinous crime imaginable. Yet the cries of a child dying from starvation mean nothing. Abuse is abuse whatever form it takes.
Alas, I fear Dan~ is right. Exploitation and manipulation are now socially accepted norms.
Child abuse won’t just disappear because we don’t give it a public forum. We need to face our demons and start to accept our social responsibilities.
Agreed. But this is a discussion about the ‘pervs’ and their right to be recognized as a ‘legal’ political party. For me, this is an issue for which there is no splitting democratic hairs. I’ll have a glass of white wine with anyone on any other subject, but there is only the taste of blood for pedophilia. There are many forms of neglect we foist upon children, but to actively seek sexual pleasure at the expense of a child deserves no compromise, no other answer but oblivion. We don’t live in a perfect world, but there is one line in the sand that no one should cross and still live.
Tab - I get involuntary erections now. I am giving pedophilia a foot in the door if I propose that the age of consent be moved to 17 from the age it is in many US states right now, which is 18. But that was not my intent. I was reacting to the article in the link provided - my point was about the double standard that, in practise, exists in our courts. The law has been “bent” back and forth - just as the drinking age has been moved around in this country. I don’t feel susceptible to the alcohol indistry to propose that 14-year-olds be allowed a glass of wine with dinner. Which I do.
What the media promote does not dictate my views - there may be a correlation here, but that is not my fault.
The ruling is not controversial as a legal matter. That has got nothing to do with spin.
As with most subjects, I’ve only studied this informally. I’m not saying that Chemical Castration is the ultimate answer, not by a long chalk, but it has been shown to dramatically decrease the sexual appetites of some male pedophiles, so the notion of ‘once a pedo, always a pedo’ (neo-McCarthyist in its paranoia) is totally unhelpful as well as the ‘name and shame’ bullshit used by The Sun and others to sell more papers/win more votes.
It depends on your attitude: some just want to get angry and lock up all sexual offenders, regardless of the nature of their offence or motives for doing so. A slightly more extreme version of this attitude says that we should just shoot them all. At the opposite end of the scale of mass delusion is the notion that all it takes is a bit of counselling and some anti-depressants and most sexual offenders can be converted back into society-loving drones who don’t break the law. In the middle you have the uncertainty that Tabula Rasa has accurately described - a hodgepodge of excuses, dubious rationales and a few token mentions of human rights.
Only one way to find out…
All punishment contravenes human rights legislation. Fuck it, if you have a law then you have to have ways of upholding that law that are themselves illegal. It’s a matter of power, both legislative and executive.
All those links worked, and I read every word. It is an extremely complex issue, but I don’t see how resentment and casting rigid types around in anger will get us anywhere.
Okay, siatd - you wish to speak the voice of reason. I think that the image conjured when talking about this issue is that of a grownup and a small child. I have talked about shooting them. And jailing them. But you wish to be reasonable.
Sexual molesters of small children should be jailed. They have committed a crime. But I have raised the issue of what should be a crime. To have sex with a small child will always be a crime. But sex with a teenager has been variously defined in the US, a least. The actual age at which this is a crime, and even at which the criminal is a criminal, has changed over time. What was not evil even a year ago in some US states is evil now.
The question of evil is the bogus one. We should not talk about what is evil, but only about what is criminal.
I’m so happy that you used that phrase, as reason is only ever a voice that one temporarily adopts.
No, I just want to see if we can imagine a better scenario. Consider it a rhetorical experiment - trust me, if it were my kid then I’d want to kill them.
Sure, no problem with punishment, even harsh punishment. We’re talking about one of the worst crimes imaginable.
And some places have flexible systems whereby a 13 year old can have sex with a 15 year old but not someone more than 2 years older than him/her, or 3 years, or whatever other code they’ve drawn up. But we should be explicit about this - children are and have always been somewhat sexual, and plenty of children have vague experiments with other children. This doesn’t excuse pedophilia and the like, not in any way, but it does go some way to explaining the phenomena cited by Delboy.
Or rather: we are never really talking about what is evil, only what is criminal, and therefore should be explicit about that.
On one hand they claim they do not call for individuals to violate the laws, but they call for a change in the laws. What chance does a poverty stricken child have when enticed by a rich pervert? NAMBLA euphemistically wraps this behavior in the garb of freedom and empowerment, when in fact children simply are too young to understand these abstract beliefs.
The point is that they want the laws changed to legalize this abuse.
"Legal aspects
In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can sanction the harmful effects of speech through laws such as those against defamation or incitement to riot."
That is harmful speech can be regulated in the USA. The effects of claiming that there is no damage to children from promoting man/boy love is bogus. There is a great deal of harm when trying to convince children to have sex at a young age.
I am talking about harmful, not immoral, morality is quite simply an individuals view, and subject to the individuals discernment. This varies worldwide. What a person considers moral in the West, nude beachs, a Muslim will consider immoral. My point revolves around the harmful effects this group may have upon children.
The numbers are much higher. Look at the number of convictions regarding pediphiles. Here is one small sample: perverted-justice.com/
Hum, some limited studies have shown the homosexuals have a smaller hippocampus. This may be simply the way they are wired. They do not hurt others, and have a lower crime rate than heterosexuals. I doubt if they choose this, as they are often targeted by hate groups and have been murdered, along with being ostracised by family and certain segments of society.
Choice is a no starter with pediphiles, just as murder, rape, robbery are no starters for a criminals. So you are wired to murder, your problem, not society’s. I do not care how you are wired, do not touch a child and do not promote that there will be no harmful effects from having sex with a child. You might want to read regarding what the victims of Catholic priests have to say regarding the ongoing effects of the many priest’s victims. I am discussing the lifelong effects of the harm caused.
Hum, do you have a link? I have very doubtful regarding this. Most, if not all rapists and pediphiles return to rape and child molestation. Do not let them out, throw away the key.
We allow free speech and supremists to exist, and these people have been known to act on their speech. The Byrd case comes to mind. Here are some stats: fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm
Do we continue to allow this. It is a Constitutional gurantee. Yes, because the government could easily call a protest against government action a hate crime. Do we allow a group to promote harmful behavior with children. No. There is a difference. We do not allow these racist groups to promote harmful behavior.
Trust me, most parents have a less tolerant view of pediphilles than nonparents, but I see your point. Hum, how about expert opinion regarding the ill effects of promoting that pediphillia is okay?
I have one 27 year-old son and he better respect me or else. “Disin” mom was a ticket to teenage hell when he was young. No television, no phone, no car, no life. However, I have zero problem with his opposing positions regarding faith, politics, economics, and we do disagree in many of the facets of these issues.
How about the Scout leader, priest, neighbor or relative promoting child love to a younger sibling. What would you do?
Thanks for not going into the ad hom land of OZ.
With regards,
aspacia
“Ain’t livin” in a free land nice. We can agree to disagree.
siatd - yes. We write these laws rather specifically. I am in no way disagreeing with you. We have laws so that our anger is not the operative element in specific cases, even if it is our anger that authors the laws. And I think we can imagine a better scenario. The reason I mention law is that it implies punishment, and that this punishment can take several forms. Laws are written not to prevent crimes, but to create them, and to regulate how they are redressed. There is no harm in using a multifaceted approach in trying to redress crimes. I think your proposal is entirely worth exploring.
I have a problem with these flexible laws, however - we have them here. If a sixteen year old can have sex with an eighteen year old (which I do not object to) then why not with a nineteen year old? The sex itself is not considered evil. Or is it? Well, here in america, it is considered evil, by many.The reason for this kind of law seems to be that we don’t want to jail an eighteen year old for having sex with a schoolmate. The actor is more important than the act - the essence of the person is at issue. I cannot make sense of this, as I consider only acts to be wrong, and not the actor. Maybe someone can help me sort this out.
If you weren’t living in the UK, I’d ask if you were in my human sexuality course in the fall 2005 quarter.
Our professor is controversial. He was originally chair of the psychology department, before he stepped down because of a particular controversy regarding a book he had written.
I remember him saying, in class, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation in the way that heterosexuality and homosexuality is. In this particular case, their attraction is specifically toward children. As a father of two, he wasn’t condoning their behavior. His area of expertise is human sexuality and this is what he studies.
I have also noticed that people refer to men/women attracted to teens as pedophiles. Actually, there is a different term used for these people. They are called hebephiles.
Thailand. The cult of youthfulness. “This model was 18 at the time of photography”. Schoolgirl used-panty vending machines. Nutritionally accelerated sexual maturation. Poverty. Advertizing. MTV. They wouldn’t think twice. Not long ago a guy and his girlfriend abused a one and half year old baby and taped it to sell over the internet. It’s cool not to care.
I disagree with much in this link as they are looking for a “more humane way” to deal with individuals who molest children. Molesting children causes life long negative after effects.
Of topic, but, I have read that quite simply, rape is a crime of power and control, not sex. They have tried chemical castration on repeat rapists and the rapist simply uses an object, like a broom stick, to gain a sense of power.
I do not know if power and control are what motivates a pediphile, child love, but this could be a factor.
Dulcet - I think your professor could well be correct - that pedophilia is an sexual orientation.
It’s just that it doesn’t matter.
If it could be shown that serial killers are born to be serial killers, we would not make an exception for them. We would not legalise sniping people at gas stations.
Whether chemical castration is humane or not does matter, as politics. The real solution may be life sentences, but some murderers do not get life sentences. Passing laws that require life sentences for pedophiles may be difficult. Pedophilia is a broad term, and the laws cover a broad spectrum of actual circumstances. Juries may find it difficult to convict certain cases if they feel the penalty is too harsh. This happens all the time in a variety of criminal cases. As a stragetic tool, chemical castration might be useful, despite that it (or may not) be more humane.
SIATD- Yet another issue we discussed in that class. Well, that issue, and how some authorities talk children into making false accusations about having been sexually molested.
Although our professor argued that sex has to be part of the equation, since a man needs to be “turned on sexually” in order to initiate rape.
Obviously there are some men who lose erections or have prematurely ejaculate during the course of the rape, but his point was that there has to be some semblance of sexual excitement required to initiate a rape.
Similar to victims of violent crime, molestation is difficult to overcome, not impossible, but very difficult. The victims often have nightmares, and dysfunction sexual relations for life. malesurvivor.org/ jimhopper.com/male-ab/
Sure, we can go into psycobabble regarding why criminals commit violence, molestations, rape, etc. Frankly, I do not care. I am more concerned regarding the victims and how to prevent the escalation of child molestation and allowing groups like NAMBLA to have a voice.
Ten Facts about Sexual Abuse of Boys and its Aftermath
Up to one out of six men report having had unwanted direct sexual contact with an older person by the age of 16. If we include non-contact sexual behavior, such as someone exposing him- or herself to a child, up to one in four men report boyhood sexual victimization. (1, 2)
On average, boys first experience sexual abuse at age 10. The age range at which boys are first abused, however, is from infancy to late adolescence. (1, 2)
Boys at greatest risk for sexual abuse are those living with neither or only one parent; those whose parents are separated, divorced, and/or remarried; those whose parents abuse alcohol or are involved in criminal behavior; and those who are disabled. (3)
Boys are most commonly abused by males (between 50 and 75%). However, it is difficult to estimate the extent of abuse by females, since abuse by women is often covert. Also, when a woman initiates sex with a boy he is likely to consider it a “sexual initiation” and deny that it was abusive, even though he may suffer significant trauma from the experience. (1)
A smaller proportion of sexually abused boys than sexually abused girls report sexual abuse to authorities. (3)
Common symptoms for sexually abused men include: guilt, anxiety, depression, interpersonal isolation, shame, low self-esteem, self-destructive behavior, post-traumatic stress reactions, poor body imagery, sleep disturbance, nightmares, anorexia or bulimia, relational and/or sexual dysfunction, and compulsive behavior like alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling, overeating, overspending, and sexual obsession or compulsion. (3, 4)
The vast majority (over 80%) of sexually abused boys never become adult perpetrators, while a majority of perpetrators (up to 80%) were themselves abused. (1)
There is no compelling evidence that sexual abuse fundamentally changes a boy’s sexual orientation, but it may lead to confusion about sexual identity and is likely to affect how he relates in intimate situations. (3, 4)
Boys often feel physical sexual arousal during abuse even if they are repulsed by what is happening. (4)
Perpetrators tend to be males who consider themselves heterosexual (5, 6) and are most likely to be known but unrelated to the victims. (3)
I can only conclude that I was molested as a child, and have forgotten it. Or that I am breathing. I say this only in support of siatd’s statement that we can perhaps do more harm than good if we take victimisation too far.
It’s possible to be victimised by victimisation itself.
