Comments on: Paedophiles: Are They Curable?

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:16:34 +0000

I should also probably reiterate that, by UK law at least, “indecent images” are not necessarily pornographic, do not have to feature nudity, do not even have to feature real children, nor do they have to be produced in an abusive situation, and may be considered either “decent” or “indecent” depending on circumstance. We are certainly not exclusively talking about clearly “sick” images.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:12:12 +0000

Mr Annoyed: You seem to be implying that I am suggesting indecent images should be intentionally produced for the purpose of consumption by paedophiles. Dilemma: whose children do we pick?! Don’t be silly. This isn’t a matter of conscription. You are simply describing an abusive process, by suggesting some sort of assignment of minors to a role regardless of the individual person’s desire to fulfill it. Secondly, your use of the phrase “little children” is inappropriate. “Minors” may be up to the age of 17, and as big as they come.
——————–
What I am actually saying is that there are several perpetual sources of indecent images, both abusive and non-abusive. The fact that we are punishing paedophiles so harshly who manage to obatain some of these images is, for the reasons I have already explained below (and others) contributing at least as many problems to society as it is solving. I know it’s a bit counter intuitive, but if you stand back and accept the paradigm shift as a whole, it makes perfect sense. Far from making the problems better, current legislation and attitudes are only distracting our attention from the heart of the real problems by amplifying apparently severity. In the process we are outcasting and prosecuting thousands of harmless individuals. By being sensible, and punishing inherently harmful behaviour, as opposed to merely offensive behaviour, we could find more effective solutions to all of these problems at once.

By: Mr Annoyed

Mr Annoyed — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:42:39 +0000

And which little children are going to appear in these sick photographs for your own strange gratification?????.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:06:55 +0000

Vitiatorman: “What normally sane man has photographs of other peoples children? ” So what? This is an ad hominem argument. This is an argument that just because something is abnormal, it is wrong. This is an arbitrary, prejudiced moral judgment, the very thing we should not be basing legislation on. If we replaced “wrong” with “harmful” this is even more clearly invalid.
————————
“This is the reason the law finds photos of children ‘indecent’ even though they may be fully dressed. It is the circumstances surrounding the possession.” It’s a valid point, but the problem is I am not arguing that the law does not have any sort of justification, but more that the justifications offered can be easily offet by other variables which also require optimisation. Just because something is indecent that does not mean it is inherently harmful. As I have said previously, in order to be fair, we have to accept some element of risk. Punishment just because you find something offensive is not only predjudiced but, as we can clearly see from the state of the world today, also very dangerous. I agree that this is not so easy to come to terms with as simply punishing anybody who merely offends sensibilities, but unfortuantely this is the real world and the real world is not black and white.
——————–
As an analogous example, we might, for example, make the recent leaked photographs of disney actress vanessa hudgens illegal. Just like many indecent images of children, they were taken by a legal aged adult. Just like many indecent images of children, they somehow got into the “wrong hands” and were distributed online. Just like many indecent images of children, their distribution is now out of control of the subject of the photograph. They are more erotic than many indecent images of children. They represented significant embarrassment for hudgens, and could potentially have cost her a career. They have had millions of downloads, orders of magnitude more than most child porngoraphy must ever get. But nevertheless possession of these photos is entirely legal. I am certain that anybody who downloaded these photos does not consider themselves worthy of the label “sex offender”, even though they may ultimately feel sorry for hudgens, or even have used them personally for gratification.
——————–
What is more, as I have previously argued, I personally am of the opinion that relaxing these laws and allowing paedophiles access to a certain number of photos will actually improve quality of life for paedophiles and decrease the likelihood of abuse, by opening up a sexual outlet. This is actually not mere speculation; the criminologist Berl Kutchinsky found that rates of child sexual abuse in denmark actually dropped in 1970, after the legalization of hardcore pornography. (Interestingly, Kutchinsky subsequently helped to ban child pornography in Denmark, although this does not counter my argument – pornographic images are a subset of indecent ones).
——————–
Indeed, forcing people to reconsider their opinions by saying, sorry, you may be offended but you’ll just have to deal with it, we are opening up the path for reform whereby we can concentrate on the *real* offenders, rather than wasting time and resources on every last paeophile who has done something mildly offensive in private.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:46:50 +0000

!: “All I see here are paedo’s trying to justify their behaviour.” Oh dear. Are you trying to play a non-existant trump card? And what if the justification is valid? What are you afraid of? Obviously I am not trying to justify the actions of child molestors, or anybody who puts children at significant risk of harm. I am trying to have paedophiles, as people, accepted into society, regardless of whether sexual relations or images remain illegal. I believe very strongly that this will not only be of significant benefit to child safety, but also to thousands of paedophiles currently under social oppression. You may also like to check out the recent book “Understanding and Adressing Adult Sexual Attraction to Children” by Sarah D. Goode.
——————–
I was going to make a list of sources for you, but then I found the following page which seems to have done a much better job than I could do within this comment space! http://newgon.com/wiki/Research. Of particular relevence is the section on the right, headed “Harm to and abuse of children: Prevalence and correlates…” and particularly http://newgon.com/wiki/Research:_Prevalence_of_Harm_and_Negative_Outcomes.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:57:42 +0000

Mr Annoyed: whatever. I have told you a balanced account of the way things are, with a certain numbers of sources (although I could provide many more if asked). Sorry that you are obviously too weak an individual to come to terms with that, and instead are quite happy following your own, biological gut instinct on this matter just because there isn’t a sufficiently large group of people to exert a potential social penalty if you didn’t. I found this article on google news, I am not specifically interested in thailand, although I know there are terrible problems with sex tourism over there which obviously I do not support.

By: Mr Annoyed

Mr Annoyed — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:46:50 +0000

Nathan you are a really fucked up individual. You talk like a politician avoiding the issue and dancing round it like the nonse you are. If you sleep with, take pictures of etc of a child you are 100% abusing this child be it physically or mentally.I have refrained from swearing however my blood is now boiling at your stuborn ignorance by trying to justify your feelings and actions. YOU NEED HELP. I suggest you seek it before you get more urges to ruin lives. What worries me is you are in the UK and are interested in Thailand, this makes me wonder about your interests in the country or should I say its poor residents with children. I hope the authorities dont let you near this country however I bet you and your paedo mates have already organised a nice little ring of abuse. BURN IN HELL

By: !

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:37:15 +0000

All I see here are paedo’s trying to justify their behaviour. This one quote makes me sick to my stomach…. “It is interesting to note that there are multiple sources of varying degree’s of credibility which proclaim that many adult/child sexual relationships are not detrimental to the child.”…. Please give links to these multiple sources because I don’t believe a word of it.

By: Vitiatorman

Vitiatorman — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 06:08:50 +0000

Social interaction between male and female leads to sexual interaction which in return leads back into social interaction, this is the only way a healthy relationship can survive and prosper. If a man does not have the required ability to carry on a meaningful rapport, verbal or otherwise, there is something amiss in his make-up and to compensate for this lack he engages in relationships closer to his mental age (prepubescent children) this can lead to a similar effect on the child and thus turning him into an odd sexual pervert when grown up.
His inability to intermingle with his peers and his eventual search for alternatives (a ‘Catch 22’ effect)

This is a direct quote from ‘Medical Library: Fact Sheet, 1997 APA’.
The characteristics of a pedophile are very hard to notice but if one were to examine it closely it is evident that they are not your average Joe. Personality characteristics vary amongst pedophiles but usually seem to be very similar once they are directly analyzed. Paedophiles usually display unusual interest in children along with a failed marriage due to dissimilar sexual interest with their spouse. Their hobbies and interest sometimes include collecting any kinds of items that revolve around children such as models of cars and airplanes. Even a pedophile’s room decorations frequently resemble that of a child (Paedophiles and Child Molesters-The Slaughter of Innocence-Online).

An argument suggesting a sexually healthy person would have in his possession
photographs of children that are not of his immediate family, frankly astound me
What normally sane man has photographs of other peoples children?
This is the reason the law finds photos of children ‘indecent’ even though they may be fully dressed. It is the circumstances surrounding the possession.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:51:02 +0000

TheRationalPaeophilde: “It is interesting to note that there are multiple sources of varying degree’s of credibility which proclaim that many adult/child sexual relationships are not detrimental to the child.” Yes, and it is even more interesting to note that examination of sources which claim universal abusive do not base their definition of abuse on harm, but more on personal ethical principles. This is why I am always very careful to insist that we distinguish between “abusive” and “offensive” – often, “abuse” in this scientific context does not imply harm, or even the gross likelihood of harm.——————–This leads to extremely bad science, involving the use of arbitrary legal definitions and ethical principles to present conclusions that, to the uninformed reader, seems to present clear evidence of intense, pervasive harm. Very commonly, more of the misleading or bad science you see used includes circular logic, selectivity of evidence (“all odd numbers are prime” – 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, all prime numbers – all good supporting evidence of this hypothesis , biased assimilation, lack of adequate (or any) control data, definition of “symptoms of abuse” which include symptoms that clearly may be caused by other things than abuse, a small number of anecdotal reports (interviews), unfounded dismissal of data that clearly challenges viewpoints, and even rhetorical, baseless arguments that the authors nevertheless treat as conclusive.——————–In the meantime, there is little ability to present resistance to the moral steamroller. From past experiences (e.g. that of Rind et al, and more recently Yuill) scientists who publish results contrary to those expected can expect to see their reputations and careers vanish and be subject to physical abuse from the public. Funding for this research can also be very difficult to find.