Child Molesters

I had no idea that child molesters put such effort into it. They build their lifestyle around it! I've just finished reading Dr. Carla Van Dam's Identifying Child Molesters (Haworth Press, 2001), and it is an eye-opener. Dr. Van Dam says that child molesters go out of their way to ingratiate themselves first with the parents, then they find out if the children themselves know how to set limits. Most shocking of all is that the legal environment often identifies the children as responsible for their own molestation.

The good news is that boundaries work. Parents should not fear to tell adults to keep their hands to themselves and certainly should not hesitate to inform the police when explicit boundaries are crossed. This is as much in the child's interest as requiring them to wear seatbelts when riding in a car. Training also works. Children who know how to say No are generally spared the trauma of being molested. In her summary, Van Dam argues against any sympathy for child molesters:

People should not confuse the love, intimacy, affection, and caring so necessary for successful child development with the sexual intimacy appropriate between equals .... The seductive blurring of boundaries, with slippery talk suggesting that sexual caresses exemplify the wholesome contact comfort that children do need, confuses and harms. Children need hugs, warmth, and wholesome touch, not sexual caresses.

https://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=2082

...is that people with a sexual orientation toward children are more worthy of our sympathy than our vengeance (I, of course, refer to those who haven’t actually raped a child). For whatever reason, whether it is biological, social or a bit of both, they are attracted to children through no fault of their own.

I'm doubtlessly going to be unpopular for saying this (something I'm used to), but how can we say that an attraction to youth is a pathlogy or disorder while other orientations (ie. adult heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality) are perceived as normal?

It is only our society, which judges sexual contact between an adult and child, which results in paedophilia being an extremely negative thing. Thus, is it right for us to immediately hate paedophiles simply for having an attraction to children?

I'm not trying to defend the molestation of children. I too, find it abhorrent. However, this whole area of thought is a lot more complex than "He likes little girls... he evil... kill him!" After all, our morality is socially constructed. Other societies have actually encouraged adult-child sexual contact.

nm

Repulsive, just the same, but maybe that's just my "societal conditioning". NAMBLA makes the same argument and actually labels the cultural hatred we feel for pedophiles as "ageism". A sickening euphemism if I've ever heard one.

Traje wrote:
"I'm doubtlessly going to be unpopular for saying this (something I'm used to), but how can we say that an attraction to youth is a pathlogy or disorder while other orientations (ie. adult heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality) are perceived as normal?"

Biologically speaking, heterosexuality would be the only "normal" behaviour, due to the fact that it is the only behaviour that can lead to further propagation of the species. Note that sexual attraction to youth of the opposite sex can be biologically normal if the youth is sexually mature. Homosexuality, while not a learned behaviour (as some have said), can not be considered to be biologically normal, as it does not lead to further propagation of the species.

That being said. There is nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour. The best man in my wedding is gay, and I don't consider him to be "weird". Obviously there is a biological reason that some people turn out to be gay. What that is, I don't know.

So therefore if hetero-sexual couples engage in sex just for sex sake and use birth control that isn't biologically normal?


If homosexuality is not a learned behaviour and not biologically normal then what is it? What is biologiacally normal? Why is the propagation species the determining factor making the type of sex a person engages in normal or not normal?

What does the fact that your friend is gay have do to with this argument?

The main function of sexual attraction and the act, througout the animal kingdom, is continued propagation of the species. Those who are not attracted to the opposite sex generally don't have sex with the opposite sex. Therefore they are not able to procreate. It is simple. We humans are animals, so what is applied to the rest of the animals applies to us. The fact that my best man is gay is a demonstration that the post has nothing to do with moral opinions on the matter. If that did not come across clearly, I apologize. The post relates only to the purpose of sex and sexual attraction being used to propagate the species.

... when people make up their own meanings for words:

"Biologically speaking, heterosexuality would be the only 'normal' behaviour, due to the fact that it is the only behaviour that can lead to further propagation of the species. ... Homosexuality, while not a learned behaviour (as some have said), can not be considered to be biologically normal, as it does not lead to further propagation of the species."

That actually isn't "biologically" speaking, or any other kind of speaking other than "meaninglessly". We just don't get to define words according to our own whim.

Try a dictionary; mine is the Oxford Concise, feel free to pick your own.

One might say that, "biologically" speaking, "normal" is "what happens"; it is something

conforming to a standard; regular, usual, typical

In that sense, homosexual behaviour, for instance, is entirely "normal". (And of course sexual abstinence after puberty is quite "abnormal".)

Of course, one might advance the hypothesis that paedophilia is not "normal" in this arguably "biological" sense:

free from mental or emotional disorder

But then, since we *define* paedophilia as a disorder, that might be kind of question-begging.

"Normal" really doesn't mean "conforming to my notions about the meaning of life" or about anything else. No one who knows what s/he is talking about would say that whether sexual behaviour is "normal" depends on whether it is directed toward reproduction (which, of course, most hetersexual sexual behaviour is not).

Unfortunately, paedophilic behaviour probably is "normal" in the first sense -- it is widespread over history and geography, across classes and races, and even to some extent across sexes.

But apart from the circular logic, it probably isn't "normal" in the second sense, since it generally can be traced to what we regard as a disorder in personality development. Again, that is circular in that it depends on our definitions of what is "good" development and what is "bad", but we do have just about as good a foundation for those definitions as we have for any other good/bad distinctions we make: disordered development tends result in both the individual being unhappy and the individual making others unhappy.

Most paedophiles are undoubtedly the victims of "bad" influences on their development, influences that result in their never developing reasonably mature, healthy personalities, with the desire and skills to meet their needs in appropriate (for themselves and society) ways. It's too simplistic, and false, to say that people with personality disorders can/should simply "stop doing" whatever bad things that they do to fulfil their unmet needs. But in some (who knows how many?) cases it would also be simplistic and false to say that they *can't* stop doing them -- at least with help, usually a lot of it.

Protecting children from those bad influences -- and not just molestation; emotional abuse and neglect can be just as disordering -- is the only way to ensure that they don't develop into the people who do bad things. The sad thing is that the people doing those bad things today are in large part the children who weren't protected when they needed it.

.

the social commentary. My post was speaking strictly from the perspective that across the animal kingdom, the main purpose of sex is to procreate. Therefore, the only "normal" sex would be that which furthered that goal. It isn't that hard to figure out.

That is the big difference.

I agree that they should recieve our sympathy, until they act on their urges.

I have long thought that instead of prison these people that can't control themselves should live in security living facilities. They could hold down jobs inside the walls and even marry ( as long as they don't have children)
It must be a miserable life to hunt down children and know that the world dispises you.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Acting on that attraction is the problem and it is not to be pitied...it is victimizing a child and there is no good reason to do that.

"After all, our morality is socially constructed."

"...but how can we say that an attraction to youth is a pathlogy or disorder while other orientations (ie. adult heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality) are perceived as normal?"..."It is only our society, which judges sexual contact between an adult and child, which results in paedophilia being an extremely negative thing."

The aversion to adult sexual contact with children doesn't have anything to do with artificial moral constructs, but is the result of the real physical damage that can be caused to the molested children. I don't want to go into all of the gory and graphic details here, but I'm sure you could Google the topic and learn all about the physical damage that an adult penis can do to a small child.

You also have to factor in the inability for a small child to comprehend the potentially negative ramifications of sexual contact and make an informed choice as to whether or not they really want to initiate that contact. ALL children who are molested are either forced or coerced into the act, and many allow the abuse to continue out of fear or the desire to "please" the abuser. Without the ability to reasonably judge the impact of the decision and refuse sexual approached from those they do not like, molested children can never be more than rape victims.

Pedophiles ARE the moral and behavioral equivalent of rapists. While I actually agree with your statement that there may be a biological reason for pedophilia similar to homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosecuality, there is ONE important difference: the other three groups generally enter into equal and voluntary relationships with those they seek to mate with. Pedophiles, on the other hand, are predators who wish to IMPOSE their will on their victims.

Oh, and as for your "Other societies have actually encouraged adult-child sexual contact" line, answer me this: Name one society in human history that BOTH promoted equality of all citizens AND adult-child sexual contact. Every society that I'm aware of which has promoted pedophilia has done so under the mindset that "Population A is better than Population B, so if we abuse Population B for our sexual gratification it doesn't matter". Rome is a great example of this. If a Roman Senator had sex with his ten year old slave boy, it was considered an acceptable practice. If he had sex with the ten year old son of another Senator, he'd likely be imprisoned or exiled. If a 20 year old slave had sex with the 10 year old son of a Senator, he'd be killed.

Pedophilia has never been accepted in any society that accepted and promoted rights and freedom.

End of thread.

Area. Tell an Adult" or to teach children how to set limits so they "are generally spared the trauma of being molested"?

ON EDIT ADD

"Most rapes and sexual assaults were not reported to the police (table 3). Sixty-three percent of completed rapes, 65% of attempted rapes, and 74% of completed and attempted sexual assaults against females were not reported to the police. Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992-2000

The stats are for persons aged 12 or older. I would speculate that nearly 100% of child molestation incidents are not reported.

or sexual attraction, they are acts of aggression and control, there is nothing warm and loving going on here. It is about power and domination, not a sexual prefence. All a child molester can give is PAIN, physical and emotional. PERIOD

should be hung upside down by their ankles and beaten with broom handles until dead.
There bodies should be left to hang on public display for all would be child molesters to see until they sufficiently decay to the point they fall.
At this point they should be taken to the local land fill and buried with the rest of the trash!

your aiming for with the broom handles?

I see by the IGNORED by-line some sort of grand intellect has been inserted by the only person on my ignored list. Too bad I won't be able to read it. That's ok, seeing as I've read enough uninformed, pseudo wanna-be expert BS from them already.

That this is a plank in the platform of the Democratic party?

Have we found one o' those planks yet that you do agree with?

.