In one of the interminable threads that devolved into endless discussions of pedophilia a couple of months ago, I raised an academic question about whether those who were commenting could come up with a reason why pedophilia was "wrong" without relying on a Judeo-Christian cultural context. The history, I argued, was that in Greece and to a lesser extent in Rome, pedophilia in some forms was culturally acceptable; only those pesky Christians managed to radically change the culture.
For me it was just an academic speculation, but apparently I was much closer than I had ever considered possible.
In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”
Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.
Child welfare experts responded to Dawkins’ remarks with outrage — and concern over their effect on survivors of abuse.
I'm just curious what people think? Even in the midst of the groping, fondling, and raping of kids, and hiding/covering up of the crimes which occurred among clergy of my faith, it was exceptionally rare that anyone actually tried to condone it as being harmless.
"what do you suppose is done with reported information"?
That's easy. It sits on a database avaiable to any competent hacker in the world. Then when, in traffic, you inadvertantly piss off a judge or the IT manager, the information is retrieved and acted upon to your severe detriment.
This is no joke. No data security system in the world protects against those who are meant to have access.
Does this happen a lot in your neighborhood, MikeLong? I've heard about Facebook bullies, and such, but not what you're talking about.
But I do know of a town in Florida where sex offenders go to live, when they can't find housing because of their conviction(s). (Can't remember the name of it, atm.)
So, if I say "Sometimes I feel like wringing my (partner's) neck," that must be reported. To whom? And as you are, I also wonder what happens then. Do they send jackboots out to arrest someone at their job.
I know therapists tell their patients what has to be reported, which of course means that the patient won't talk about it.
In the UK, our hairdressers double up as our therapists. Works loads better and you get a haircut at the same time :)
which of course means that the patient won't talk about it
Therapists have ways of getting at the things that arent talked about.They are good at their voodoo.
Yes, some pedophiles are monsters who destroy the lives of their victims. Others struggle to control their impulses and might seek treatment except for laws that require their therapists to report them and enroll them in an easily abused and hacked database.
This article argues that by propagating the view that all pedophiles are monsters, we allow ourselves to overlook the molesters among us, because they don't fit the stereotype many people hold of what a pedophile is like. From the same article:
“It doesn’t protect children to have a stigmatized group of outcasts living on the fringe of society,” Spencer told me. “Anyone who’s serious about protecting children from abuse has to be just as serious about the needs of minor-attracted people.”
He doesn’t mean their “need” to have sexual contact with children, but their need for safe avenues to seek therapy, feel understood, and thrive as non-offenders. It’s a perspective being embraced by a growing number of clinicians, researchers, and therapists as well. Child sexual abuse is typically viewed solely as a criminal problem—something for cops to catch, courts to adjudicate, and everyone to fear. But some in the psychiatric community believe that preventing abuse calls for a much broader public health approach, one in which the potential abuser himself is reached and treated before doing harm.
Mental Health Group Looks to Remove Stigma From Pedophilia
A group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals say it's time to change the way society views individuals who have physical attractions to children.
The organization, which calls itself B4U-Act, is lobbying for changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the guideline of standards on mental health that's put together by the American Psychiatric Association.
The group says its mission is to help pedophiles before they create a crisis, and to do so by offering a less critical view of the disorder.
"Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people or the issue of child sexual abuse," reads the organization's website. (source)
I think thats absolutely fabulous Unseen. I love Psychiatry when it does this. I see this as so fair and right and just.
Because yes there are Pedophiles who are harmless and in need of a place to be understood and then there are the MikeLongs of the world.
We need to help the Pedophiles.
OK let's make this really clear. You are NAMING me as a pedophyle because I, EXACTLY like Unseen, want to "Remove Stigma From Pedophilia" and I drew a hypotherical situation in order to highlight binary thinking and moral panic (in which you are an enthusiastic participant)?
You have demonstrated your hateful bigotry toward men. I have therefore assiduously ignored most of your posts. But THIS, Angela, is TRULY despicable. I will be taking your accusation to my solicitor.
I did ask you explain the folowing claims you made:
"So, say this 10-year-old girl approaches a dearly-loved uncle with questions she would never take to her parents. They continue talking over a period of time and she finally succeeds in seducing him. They engage in mutual masterbation. She has NO regrets.
"ALL children, and especially girls with their fathers (and by extension other father figures), use seduction to get their way."
and you response to me was:
"I fully agree with that statement, but if you disagree, argue it with the poster, Unseen."
I think thats way more offensive than anything Ive said. and Im not a bigot toward men.
Neither of these were "claims" in any respect. The first was part of a HYPOTHETICAL situation I painted to (successfully) isolate binary thinking. I would suggest that you look up the word "hypothetical", but even if you DID own a dictionary, I doubt that you would understand the definition.
The second WAS NOT POSTED BY ME, you moron!! - I only quoted it.
Now leave me the fuck alone. My solicitor will get back to you in due course.
haha funny @StupidBitch
"Neither of these were "claims" in any respect."
Thats not how it looked to me and I asked you to clarify. Im sorry if Im mistaken
"Now leave me the fuck alone."
" My solicitor will get back to you in due course."