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.
It should for many. If you want a fool-proof system, take them out back and shoot 'em in the head.
In ripoffs like that, justice seldom recoups anything close to the amount lost, which can adversely affect children as well as adults, I might add.
I don't want to live in a society where urges need to be kept in a registry.Should we also have a registry for people who sometimes have murderous urges they don't act on just in case a murder might happen somewhere near them?
Its an interesting question that, about murderous urges.
If I went to a therapist and revealed that I had the urge to kill - would the therapist put me on a register too?
Id like to know the answer to that.
I don't think there is such a registry, and the therapist is only required, in some jurisdictions, to report an impending murder, not the mere mulling it over.
In Vermont if you report to your therapist that you have urges to harm yourself or others, there is mandatory reporting, but I don't know what the follow-through is.
Just urges or specific intent. With intent, I believe it's reportable in almost any jurisdiction.
If you are seeing a psychiatrist, urges must be reported. I cannot say whether this actually achieves anything or whether it's one of those rules in place just to make the system look like it cares. I believe the therapist does have to inform the patient of the fact they will have to report the matter. I cannot imagine what is actually done with this information, though, once it has been reported.
Yes - urges need to be reported.
The way the therapist determines how likey you are to carry it out is by how far you have taken the fantasy in your mind. Has it turned into ideation for example.
A therapist may not be too concerned if I mull over suicide but if I have an urge to suicide and I have planned it to the point that I see my own dead body in my mental scenario - then the therapist intervenes.
It makes sense for suicide, but what do you suppose is done with reported information of murderous urges? I have no idea.
They call it 'murderous rage'. Its one of the first things they determine in you when you see the therapist.
Mostly they know that these urges come from childhood violence. So then they work on your past.
I dont know what they do after that if they find the client resistant to change..
Maybe Kairan knows.
Yes, murderous rage, that's the term. I can understand how the therapist/psychiatrist might have techniques to address it, but I was genuinely wondering who they are mandated to report it to, and what, if anything, is done with such information, by those reported to, not by the therapist or psychologist.