For discussion: If you were a pedophile
I've thought about this a bit, and would like to hear your thoughts.
It seems to me that pedophilia isn't a choice (and who would choose it?); it's more of a sexual orientation. An unwanted one in our society and, I think most would agree, almost a universally stigmatized behavior. It's abhorrent in a way homosexuality isn't to me, because it involves contact with a person who is not old enough to consent.
But let's say you are a young man, and you come to realize that your sexual preference really is prepubescent children. What the hell do you do?
-try to ignore it? and hope it doesn't become so compelling that you become a predator
--try therapy? which doesn't seem to be of much help
--give in to it and hate yourself, or disassociate your actions so much you don't even acknowledge it?
--become a priest or a boy scout leader?
--blow your head off because there's no hope?
:headshake I just don't know. And glad it's not me!
I cannot relate at all to this "behavior." If I even begin to think about it, as a parent ... I have VERY negative thoughts. If it were my kid ...
I, too, find it very hard to relate to the monsters of our world. But there are plenty of them out there--how do they live with themselves?
What if you were a good man otherwise, but realized that you liked little kids that way. I mean, I just can't imagine . . .
Isn't there a chemical castration option? I mean sure, it's no good when it's done involuntarily to Alan Turing, but if it's voluntary... My understanding is that if you have no sex drive at all, you are never compelled to act on anything even if your brain is still wired the same way.
I really don't know how prevalent that is for voluntary procedures. I think that would be in the "therapy" option. I also think it would take a brave and strong person to walk into a psychiatrist's office and talk about those urges and request that.
This one is a tough one for me because it's taken a very long time to get people to accept the fact the being GAY is something you are born as. Imagine trying to get recognition for pedophile rights. (excluding NAMBLA. Their delusional freaks).
Added to this, my own experience as a victim when i was a kid.
So if I had been born a pedophile, I would hope I'd have the courage to put a stop to the behaviour in any way possible.
But 2000 years ago, it was common practice and considered honorable in Greece, for learned men to accept young boys as pupils and lovers.
Louis Theroux (English broadcaster) dealt with this very issue in A Place for Paedophiles, a one-hour show set in a holding/ rehabilitation facility in California. The inmates have all served the sentences mandated by law, and are being held indefinitely in the public interest.
Very few make it through the program. Many refuse even to participate. Those that do are subjected to a battery of tests, one of which is the "peter metre". Developed during the Vietnam era, to determine whether men were really gay or just trying to avoid the draft (I bet it got more negatives than positives - patriotic gay Americans kept their mouths shut) it measures involuntary arousal to images shown.
Those that make it through, and are deemed no longer a threat can remain incarcerated for years awaiting a safe place to live.
These men are no longer criminals. So they have every possible state paid luxury you can have while still having your freedom denied. Three square meals, cable tv, classes, exercise etc etc. Something that must rip a hole in right wing sensibilities.
Re the OP - I'd simply deny myself.
But I'm not that way inclined and have no idea how I'd feel if I was.
I've been celibate since the last world cup, and now my libido is waking up I find myself getting blinding headaches when I masturbate. Go figure. I'm glad I don't believe in God.
But 2000 years ago, it was common practice and considered honorable in Greece, for learned men to accept young boys as pupils and lovers.
It was mostly acceptable for straight men to rape women back then too. I don't think it's about the orientation either then or now, it's about the rights of the other person.
If everything about me stayed the same except for that one compulsion, I would probably feel incredibly guilty about it and would try to suppress it. The shame would also make me try to hide it, which means I wouldn't seek help or treatment.
This is an interesting question, but really unanswerable. I'm not a monster now, and I'd like to say that if I were a monster I wouldn't act like a monster. But the reality is probably that if I were a monster I'd probably act like one.
I remember seeing a programme about paedophilia that was very interesting. One of the issues it raised is that there are different kinds of paedophile. There are those who are aroused by youngsters but who see it as a a kind of *thinks* 'beautiful' awakening of that youngster. They tend not to be violent or engage in rape. They tend more towards touching and 'loving' the child. Then there are those who view kids as there to be preyed upon; quite literally: there is a book that was circulated underground giving tips on how to groom, and and how to get into the affections of a family with children (for example). They are often violent and see the children as sexually aware teases.
Acting on either impulse is wrong (in my and most people's view) but...they are not the same thing. One is 'accidentally' harmful to a child they most likely love. The other is wilfully harmful to a child they have objectified. To me it is wrong to treat these two very different kinds of people as if they were the same, and equally 'evil'.
As to the OP: I'm really not sure, but I suspect i would lean towards celibacy, and 'satisfy' my compulsion through fantasy and pictures.
...I find myself getting blinding headaches when I masturbate. ...
So even when you masturbate you slam into the headboard? hehehehe
I don't think there is a good answer, because frankly, we are not sure about this stuff; not sure if it's an inate "orientation"; if it is something that can be changed, or even treated effectively.
Dana: doesn't that first category just scream Michael Jackson? and, if celibacy is an option, is that why we get so many clergy afflicted with this? Maybe they're thinking, if I go into a celibate profession I can just not act this out with God's help.
I think that's a good point Cloud. And yes it does just scream Michael Jackson.
Y'know i saw a brilliant film a couple of years ago about a paedophile. The lead role was played by Kevin bacon. Hell of a performance: very sensitively done. I thought he was ever so brave as an actor to take such a role.
if you satisfy yourself with porn, you're still a sexual offender
is it the same?
Depends on if it's real children involved. These days there's a hell of a lot of very realistic looking porn art .....or so I hear:P
I believe you can opt for chemical castration, but it would probably have to be administered through a doctor. So you would have to tell them why you want such a round of drugs.
Its a compulsion, I don't know if a person can ever be truly "cured" of pedophilia. Other than opting out, or bein locked up, the only other way too keep yourself from givin into the impulse would probably be chemical castration.
It's not always a compulsion to 'act'. Any more than ordinary sexual desire is a compulsion to 'act'. Shouldn;t assume thatbecause someone gets turned on by children that they are less able to resist that desire than someone who is turned on by anything else.
Depends on if it's real children involved. These days there's a hell of a lot of very realistic looking porn art .....or so I hear:P
...And that has also been labeled criminal child pornography in the eyes of the law. I would do a google search to cite an article backing up my claim, but I don't want the nice young men from the NSA to pay me a visit. :right:
The question, always, lies in
harm. Homosexuality in and of itself is not
harmful to the consenting adults (well, as long as enough lube is used, I suppose.) I can imagine -- with
major mental contortions -- a society where a type pedophilia
was not inherently harmful. We
do not live in that society.
So, in
this society, an active pedophile (like a rapist) is one that seeks to do harm to others. Therefore, they are criminal. If I had impulses like that, I would hope to seek some sort of therapy. Similar to how I would feel if I had impulses to randomly shoot people or torture small animals.
Looking at made-up pictures and cgi porn shouldn;t be illegal. IMO.
The problem is there have been a whole lot of studies showing that looking at porn does not satisfy the urge, but rather intensifies the desire for the real thing.
If I was a pedophile? a female one? does chemical castration work for girls? Well yeah, I know they are mostly male, but i don't even manage to predict beest's reaction to stuff and we've been married 15 years. How in the hell am i supposed to know how I'd think if i were a male attracted to children in a sexual way? frankly, I suspect i'd feel that it was normal and society was being unduly oppresive. So I'd keep quiet and do what i needed to do in secret and seek out others who felt the same way.
Wiki
In response to the demise of the CPPA, on April 30, 2003 President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law).[1]
The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value.
And
The PROTECT Act also amended 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, which was part of the original CPPA. The amendment added paragraph (a)(3), which criminalizes knowingly advertising or distributing "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The law draws a distinction between obscene depiction of any minor, and mere depiction of an actual minor.
I object someones lust for children and calling it a sexual orientation.
There are so many defense mechanisms which take the responsibility away from the perpetrator whatever the crime.
The news is full of it. Like that women drowning babies in the bathtub because she had postpartum blues. That man who said he turned his life around and god talked to him out of little boxes so he kept her captive in his back yard for twenty years.
I think it is more of a case of the primitive brain that cannot delay personal gratification.
but just because you object to it, doesn't mean it's not true.
I don't know that it is a sexual orientation--that just seems to be what most of the experts are now saying. It's a thing that just is--not something you choose.
Isn't it natural for animals to pick the youngest, strongest, fittest mate? Wouldn't that just make pedophilia an excessive extension of a natural urge?
/devil's advocate
noooooo mon e devil , and I don't have the brain power to take it to the discussion level. I just wanted to call BS. Or anyway that's my vote.
cloud
Truth is relative where a person's inner self is concerned.
If there is a 'victim' involved any reason given to alleviate the responsibility is just a defense mechanism.
i know that the TDCJ offers the orchiectomy procedure for free to it's inmates. or in some cases i've seen inmates get worked over because of their crimes. a guy i know beat the living shayt out of his cellie for looking at his daughters' picture wrong. the guard let the guy i know make it and didn't put him in lock up because he told the guard what happened and the guard said he had 2 daughters and probably would have done the same thing if in jasons' position.
back on subj. sometimes the orchiectomy doesn't take. this guy on parole had “in possession of cards featuring individuals having sex as well as images of exposed females.”
here's the story
personally i find it disgusting. i would have no problem going to prison if someone touched my son in an inappropriate manner.
i
here's the story
personally i find it disgusting. i would have no problem going to prison if someone touched my son in an inappropriate manner.
Exactly plthijinx. It is because you can identify with the victim. You have empathy for the hurt and damage done to a child who has no power or worldly knowledge. Children are taught to obey adults and to have an adult betray that code is indefensible.
I had to burn out my thoughts on this by doing some reading on self control theories, criminology and the link between the two.
Finally after seeing the 'marshmallow' control test a half a dozen annoying times I find something short and concise that the 'experts' well agree on and so do I.
If there is a victim then it is a crime and not an orientation. It's about personal gratification and the person who can hurt another to provide their pleasure is a low - brow deviant.
crime as regards to low self-control:
A “here and now” orientation for those who are unwilling or unable to delay gratification.
Easy or simple gratification through crime requires no skill or perseverance.
Crime is exciting and appealing to those with low levels of self-control.
Crime has no long-term benefits, thus, is only appealing to those with low self-control.
Crime requires no skill or planning and is especially suited for those who are unable to make long-term investments in skill development.
Crime results in pain or discomfort for its victims, which fits with the correlation between low self-control and self-centeredness.
[SIZE="1"]
[COLOR="LightBlue"]ok It's time for me to quit[/COLOR].:)[/SIZE]
snip.....Crime has no long-term benefits, thus, is only appealing to those with low self-control.
Crime requires no skill or planning and is especially suited for those who are unable to make long-term investments in skill development.
Crime results in pain or discomfort for its victims, which fits with the correlation between low self-control and self-centeredness.
and i can't tell you how many people (errrr asswipes) i met who have not only low self control and self-centeredness but also a huge problem i saw that they have is low to extremely low self-esteem. whatever crime they were locked up for, it didn't matter. those three problems were very prominent. it's a very difficult problem to fix and in most cases, cannot. why? because they don't want to change mostly. maybe one out of a hundred.
Sky what you are talking about is acting on the impulse, not having the impulse. The impulse itself is ( I think) an unchosen orientation. Acting on it is a crime.
Okay, I have to ask, how can orchie "not take"?
Either you have your testicles removed or you don't. It's not like the doctor can miss one or something.
Chemical castration, usually through Depo-Provera administered either through shots or sub-dermal implant, does not work as advertised. Sure, it chemically neuters a guy but that in itself cannot suppress ingrained behaviour. All it can do is take out the sexual component of what in my opinion is essentially rape.
...and only with that particular appendage.
I've thought about this a bit, and would like to hear your thoughts.
It seems to me that pedophilia isn't a choice (and who would choose it?); it's more of a sexual orientation. An unwanted one in our society and, I think most would agree, almost a universally stigmatized behavior. It's abhorrent in a way homosexuality isn't to me, because it involves contact with a person who is not old enough to consent.
But let's say you are a young man, and you come to realize that your sexual preference really is prepubescent children. What the hell do you do?
-try to ignore it? and hope it doesn't become so compelling that you become a predator
--try therapy? which doesn't seem to be of much help
--give in to it and hate yourself, or disassociate your actions so much you don't even acknowledge it?
--become a priest or a boy scout leader?
--blow your head off because there's no hope?
:headshake I just don't know. And glad it's not me!
I wish more of them would choose option #5. I heard an NPR discussion on this topic yesterday and one of the guests stated they had one man who documented 35,000 cases of molestation that he was responsible for, he kept his own records. I don't have many nice words for these kinds of people.
I can only think of one - DIE!
Sky what you are talking about is acting on the impulse, not having the impulse. The impulse itself is ( I think) an unchosen orientation. Acting on it is a crime.
I don't wish to ignore you so I'll just say it is not possible for me to respond to this with any kind of willingness to get to the meanings of what impulses can mean because we have lots of them and whether that constitutes any kind of orientation to anything I do not know. There are many problems with ethics and philosophizing just takes too much darn time.
impulses hum
On a lighter note.
I have impulses to eat lots of pastry. I do. I love donuts. I never met a donut I didn't love. I think that means I have an orientation to being a fatty. I try not to act on my natural inclinations more than every two weeks. :)
Replace impulse with compulsion.
Simply put: It's all about making choices. The RIGHT ones.
Everyone has impulses to to wrong things at times. There are different degrees of wrong, depending on multitudes of standards. Not being able to make the choice not to do these wrongs is, in my opinion, the definition of insanity. There are people who just can't make the right choice at a given time. I call them crazy motherfuckers.:crazy:
I'm sure I'm not the only one here that ignores laws that I deem stupid, AND I'm willing to take the risk of punishment.
Pedos do that too. These people don't feel it's wrong, they go by their own feelings of right and wrong. That's why law enforcement is critical in this instance.
Of course that's led to some stupid shit, like parents harassed for taking pictures of their kids naked in the kiddie pool. No matter how many laws they pass, parents are the ultimate protection for their kids.
it happens occasionally... Bruce has it nailed. I agree.
I think society generally accepts that most people are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, and generally prefer younger fitter specimens if given a choice, although females also are drawn to older more successful males. And this follows a biological urge to procreate and produce healthy offspring (young/fit) and to be able to protect them (success/wealth).
Most, but not all. Some like much older people. Some like unhealthy people. Some like people of the same sex. Some like people who are still children.
We probably all feel the same way about the type of people we are attracted to, until someone tells us it's wrong. The definition of wrong changes with time. (Think Turing)The main difference between pedophilia and all the other types of "wrong" are that the subjects of the lust are not old enough to give consent for sex. From the outside we all want pedophiles hung, drawn, castrated and quartered, but this questionis posed from the inside.. and from the inside I'd say the pedo feels pretty much like gays did way back when.....
True, dat.
Interesting angle: Most men who "we" consider normal, if they were completely honest want to have sex with younger women.If the legal age for consentual sex is 16, then lots of men would choose to sleep with a girl who is, say 16 years and 2 days old. I wonder if those same men would want to fuck a 15 year old if the legal age was changed to fifteen. Probably so.
We are all animals deep down. Most of us just have the ability to control our animal instincts. Some don't. Those individuals would be the pedophiles, or as afore mentioned, the crazy mofos.:eyebrow:
Personally, I have always been attracted to older women. But now that I'm in my mid fifties I seem to desire younger women. The older I get, the younger my fantasies wander. Perhaps that is a sign of waning sanity within itself. Something to ponder on....:eek:
I can bet capn that in your fantasy the 15 year old is developed sexually. There is no way I believe your fantasy girl looks anything like a child like 7 and and 9 year old.
To me any kind of attraction comes with a thought. In our fantasies I bet too that the object of our attraction is willing and responsive.
Young children are not willing or responsive or sexually mature. Does anyone want to do it with a child? and call it an orientation? The survival of the fittest? That does not mesh. Maybe pedo's are their own Darwin award candidates.
During the Victorian era, the legal age of consent for a girl was 12. There was a thriving industry of brothels catering to men who particularly wanted sex with young virgins: children in today's terms. Today those men would be considered paedophiles. Back then they were simply red-blooded men.
Context matters and is not a constant.
Sky: I understand your distaste for this subject. But it cannot in my mind be wrong to seek a greater understanding of these people.
During the Victorian era, the legal age of consent for a girl was 12. There was a thriving industry of brothels catering to men who particularly wanted sex with young virgins: children in today's terms. Today those men would be considered paedophiles. Back then they were simply red-blooded men.
Context matters and is not a constant.
Sky: I understand your distaste for this subject. But it cannot in my mind be wrong to seek a greater understanding of these people.
France was even more sexually promiscuous. I know that context matters when it comes to complacency and complacency comes from social status in those eras. It depended upon your social circle and then like now a fall from a particular social circle was directly related to which sexual pursuit one partook in.(among other things of course)
I get the history of it. I think it would be better to understand the unwilling participant.
Well. I would posit that actually it would be most useful, societally speaking, to understand both. But in terms of attempting to tackle/prevent the problem of paedophilia, then understanding the perpetrators (what makes someone a paedophile/why they do what they do) might be most productive. By understanding the victim we can better help them cope after the fact. But if we want to reduce the number of paedophile victims, then really we need to understand the perpetrators.
Then again I see no conflict between the two. Why is it better to understand one and seek no understanding of the other? Seeking to understand the paedophile doesn't negate an ability to understand their victims.
It was mostly acceptable for straight men to rape women back then too. I don't think it's about the orientation either then or now, it's about the rights of the other person.
Bullshit. If it were acceptable it wouldn't have been used as a terrorist tactic and punishment against foes. It was surely more common but it wasn't "acceptable."
Depends on if they were married or not.
Rape in marriage was only recognised in UK law in the mid 90s. Prior to that it was considered impossible for a husband to 'rape' his wife as she'd effectively given life-time consent to sex at any time that her husband wanted by dint of her saying yes at the altar.
Also, whilst rape was often used (and is still often used) as a form of intimidation in war, there was also a common attitude until very recently (and indeed some people still take this view) that when a woman says 'no' she means 'yes'. In fact, in courtship it was for a long time considered proper for the woman to protest and for the man to persuade forcibly. That showed that she was properly demure and he was properly manly.
. . . or that women were at fault in rape because they were somehow alluring. I think this is what some perps feel about kids, too--that they are seductive, and teasing the man.
More understanding of the causes and cures is certainly in order, because at this point, we are just going through trial and error. At least it's a problem that's being talked about and somewhat addressed now.
Don't....... Stop.
Don't.... Stop.
Don't.. Stop.
Don't stop.
Don'tstop.
Don'tstop.
Don'tstop.
Like that, Dana? ;)
It seems to me that pedophilia isn't a choice (and who would choose it?); it's more of a sexual orientation. [...]
But let's say you are a young man, and you come to realize that your sexual preference really is prepubescent children. What the hell do you do?
-try to ignore it? and hope it doesn't become so compelling that you become a predator
--try therapy? which doesn't seem to be of much help
--give in to it and hate yourself, or disassociate your actions so much you don't even acknowledge it?
--become a priest or a boy scout leader?
--blow your head off because there's no hope?
:headshake I just don't know. And glad it's not me!
Hi Cloud.
These are good questions and demonstrate greater than usual humanity toward this population. With expansion of human rights and equality to previously excluded groups, paedophilia has become a last resort for legitimate prejudice and scapegoating. Indeed, despising paedophiles allows a rare opportunity for ordinary people to assert their feelings of moral superiority and bolster their personal self image.
As somebody who is attracted to children --and who has been conscious of and self-conscious about these feelings since well before puberty, and who has NEVER committed any kind of sexual offence-- I can tell you it
is difficult living with paedophilia, but also that much of the difficulty stems from unremitting social stigma and intolerance. I can also tell you that most paedophiles do not abuse children, and that much -probably most- child sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by non-paedophiles.
Anyway, you mentioned some options, so I'll comment on them...
-try to ignore it? and hope it doesn't become so compelling that you become a predator
This is the worst possible strategy, but unfortunately it is the one most paedophiles settle on. The reason for this is that most internalize the following syllogism:
[LIST=1]
[*]paedophiles are bad
[*]i am a paedophile
[*]i am bad
[/LIST]
Being intrinsically beyond redemption, a paedophile has no motive to analyze his situation, attitudes or behaviour, and no motive to seek help, support or advice. Instead he goes into a state of denial and keeps his feelings hidden, even from himself. This can be a recipe for disaster.
--try therapy? which doesn't seem to be of much help
Paedophilia is a stable sexual orientation. Unfortunately the majority of therapists are poorly trained in this area. Information about paedophilia is heavily biased toward forensic and child protection agendas, and offers little comfort to paedophiles themselves. Therapists have become fixated on 'reparative' therapies, much as they did until very recently with homosexuality.
This failed duty of care reflects very poorly on clinical standards. These services
must be free, informed and confidential, yet in many jurisdictions, therapists are mandated to report paedophile clients to authorities. Obviously this will guarantee that no sensible paedophile will ever seek voluntary help there.
As it happens, despite some very bad experiences, over the years I've found two separate therapists who have been a huge help to me. Both of these have been very kind and accepting, and have reassured me that my orientation is not a moral failing or a mental illness. Its hard to convey how healing this has been for me. It's paralyzing to experience one's nature as fundamentally at odds with one's own values of care and empathy, and even worse to feel deeply ashamed of it and compelled to keep it a secret. The negative psychological consequences of intense stigma have been well canvassed in discussions of homosexuality, and its no different for paedophiles.
For me, this therapy has been invaluable, but only because my therapists were sympathetic and supportive and never sought to pathologize or change my orientation. This isn't to suggest that they never sought to ensure my conduct remain within accepted social constraints. This objective was sometimes much on their minds, and that priority was accepted by me as relevant. I should also point out that I paid for all of this therapy myself, spending many thousands of dollars. For many minor attracted people, such self funding is simply not an option.
--give in to it and hate yourself, or disassociate your actions so much you don't even acknowledge it?
This option pretty much goes hand in hand with the first one
-try to ignore it. They are the poles of a single complex and reinforce each other. A person ignores his situation, does nothing to process it in a conscious way, forces it into the subconcious realms of his instinctive behaviour, and then finds himself acting out in ways he maybe hoped he wouldn't. Unable to confront the reality of his actions, he pushes them further underground, strengthens his denial and the cycle continues. This is why self-acceptance is so fundamental to self management, and why stigma is so counter-productive.
--become a priest or a boy scout leader?
Believe it or not, this is a popular option, and one i think should be perfectly acceptable. Personally I'd prefer to hang out with Brownies than Boy Scouts, but so long as appropriate conduct is maintained with the children, i don't see the problem. I've often gone out of my way to spend time with kids, especially in the years since I've learned to feel less inhibited and ashamed of my orientation. I've had some really great friendships with them, and not a few remain close friends as adults, fully aware of my orientation.
--blow your head off because there's no hope?
I first sought therapy after a suicide attempt. Being male, this wasn't a 'cry for help', it was a serious attempt to end my life. It was only by pure luck that I survived. It gave me a big scare and utterly changed my attitude to my condition, leading to me where I am now. Things are still difficult for me sometimes, but the difficulties are mainly extrinsic, presented by society, rather than by a lot of emotional knots twisting up my insides.
cont...cont. from above...
So, in conclusion...
I'll tell you about the strategies that have worked for me. To begin with, I've come to recognize that my orientation isn't simply a sexual attraction to children, its a generalized orientation, and has a strong nurturing component to it. It's instinctive in the way that motherhood is instinctive. Altho my sexual feelings are undeniable, they are far from central or demanding of attention or satisfaction.
I've also learned to be open with people about my feelings. I don't go shouting about it from the rooftops, but that's not because I'm ashamed, it's becos of the level of prejudice, intolerance, hostility and violence shown toward people like me by society. Its depressing that this level of bigotry is so acceptable to otherwise civilized people.
Despite this, I'm optimistic things will change for the better. Plenty of people who've engaged with me on this issue in the past few years have reappraised their initial prejudices and have come to show me their trust, kindness, respect and understanding, so i know it's possible. I have a sizable circle of friends and family who know about my orientation, and most are quite happy for me to spend time with their children.
I've fallen in love with children on two or three occasions. These haven't been trivial pseudo-experiences, they have been profound and involving personal journeys. It was grief over the absence of a beloved child that precipitated my suicide attempt. Grieving in silence and secrecy is very difficult. I've always felt a responsibility to shield children from the burden of these kinds of feelings, and I think this applies as much to parental love as to the romantic variety. I'm dedicated to the idea that it is the adult's duty to meet children's needs and not the other way around. I've also had children show me strong affection and emotional commitment. When a child shows love for an adult, there's a serious responsibility to safeguard that child's trust and not betray them in any way. That's my guiding ethos.
As for expressing my sexual feelings in private, well I don't collect child pornography, but i do have a lot of children's books in my shelves, and sometimes in the illustrations, careless little girls let their knickers show! I find it next to impossible not to think about children when I masturbate, but I don't think about masturbating at all when I'm with children. In my experience, children in fantasy are quite different to real life children, who have a way of focusing attention on their real needs. The more contact I have with real life children, the less inclined i am to confuse them with the fantastic variety.
This is part of a pattern: the more consciously I reflect on the situation I and others like me are in, and the more effort I put into educating those around me about our challenges and struggles, then the more honorable and worthwhile I feel. I feel less trapped and far, far less vulnerable to any impulsive or compulsive acting out.
I think society, especially that small element of it that has some capacity for rational insight, bears a heavy burden of responsibility to develop a more mature stance in it's attitudes to paedophilia, and also needs to confront some of its own anxieties around sexuality, and child sexuality in particular. I was eleven when my romantic interest in little girls first occasioned comment from adults. At the time it was no big deal, but by the time I was seventeen I'd grown to feel perverted, isolated and ashamed. Children are taught in school that sex is fraught with danger, that evil paedophiles lurk in every playground, but a sizable number of these children are going to grow into men who themselves experience some sexual attraction to children. These feelings are far more common than is generally acknowledged, and unless they are discussed and allowed some acceptable avenue for exploration and expression, they will cause misery for someone.
Of course children deserve protection from sexual abuse, but all too often this 'protection' is simply a cipher for social control of their sexuality and of sexuality in general. Children themselves are now being routinely subjected to accusations of sexual abuse of peers and are subsequently exposed to serious institutional abuse by the judicial system. As if sexual curiosity were a heinous crime.
In many historical contexts, paedophilic feelings in adults have been recognized as a source of authentic and selfless love and devotion that can play an important role in the education and nurturing of children. Unless society recognizes this capacity for good in adults who are attracted to children, those adults will seek alternative, and sometimes malignant ways to meet their emotional needs.
cheers
sean.
Wow... much to think about. Thanks.
Wow... much to think about. Thanks.
No problem. Thanks for publishing.
:)
I'm having trouble digesting this, honestly, because it's so contrary to my preconceived notions I've had for over half a century. I'm going to have to reread it a couple of times, over a couple of days, and digest it.
You haven't changed my mind yet, but it's got me thinking.
...it's got me thinking.
My work is done!
Fascinating stuff, sean. Bloody brave too.
Thank you.
My work is done!
Oh I sincerely hope not :P Stick around, you might find the place interesting :)
Oh I sincerely hope not :P Stick around, you might find the place interesting :)
Thanks DanaC. I'm definitely encouraged by the response so far.
:)
This is the first time I've had any first hand info from anyone on this topic. So prior to Sean's post(s), I must admit that my views were based totally on hearsay.
I was able to follow along with what you were saying, right up until this point:
Of course children deserve protection from sexual abuse, but all too often this 'protection' is simply a cipher for social control of their sexuality and of sexuality in general. Children themselves are now being routinely subjected to accusations of sexual abuse of peers and are subsequently exposed to serious institutional abuse by the judicial system. As if sexual curiosity were a heinous crime.
Screeching halt. Standard party line of many abusive pedophiles is that what they are doing is not abuse if the child is willing. And I take issue with the assertion that "children" in the sense you mean are going through the judicial system--worst case scenario is teenagers being accused of statutory rape with their teenage girlfriends. You are not discussing teenagers, you are discussing little children. I think there may have been one story that I can recall in the last 10 years about a kindergartener who was suspended for kissing another kindergartener on the playground. That's hardly "insitutional abuse" by the "judicial system."
When you insert this topic in with the rest, your sincerity takes a big hit.
I'm not buying any justification of sex upon children in any way, shape or form. You can tell me how its a disease or some other form of sickness or depression... whatever. I couldn't care less. You try that shit with one of my kids and I'll kill you - very painfully - PERIOD.
From
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/368007_youthoffenders23.html
They were neighbors, aged 13 and 10, who played together in a toy fort at the older boy's home. But one summer afternoon, the teen began talking about masturbation, then performed oral sex on the younger boy. He said they should do it again the next day. And they did.
Soon after, two sheriff's deputies arrived at the adolescent's Eastside home to read the seventh-grader his rights. Within two months, he was a registered sex offender, convicted of first-degree child rape.
"I didn't know that what I was doing was a crime -- that's not to minimize it -- I just didn't know," said Tyler, now 23, who agreed to talk with the Seattle P-I if identified only by his middle name.
"I was just some stupid kid growing up, who had an urge and he didn't know how to cope with it. Afterward, I always wondered, 'Is there something wrong with me? Is there some malfunction in my brain? Am I a pervert?' But it was just my inability to understand what I was feeling."
Since 1997, more than 3,500 children in the state -- some as young as 10, though on average about 14 -- have been charged and convicted as felony sex offenders, a mark that remains on their records forever, barring them from careers in medicine, teaching or a host of other professions that serve the vulnerable. It also frightens many into under-the-radar housing arrangements to avoid landlords who require background checks.
and this from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22juvenile-t.html
Sex-offender therapy for juveniles was a new field in the 1980s, and Longo, like other therapists, was basing his practices on what he knew: the adult sex-offender-treatment models. “It’s where the literature was,” Longo, a founder of the international Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, told me not long ago. “It’s what we’d been doing.”
As it turns out, he went on to say, “much of it was wrong.” There is no proof that what Longo calls the “trickle-down phenomenon” of using adult sex-offender treatments on juveniles is effective. Adult models, he notes, don’t account for adolescent development and how family and environment affect children’s behavior. Also, research over the past decade has shown that juveniles who commit sex offenses are in several ways very different from adult sex offenders. As one expert put it, “Kids are not short adults.”
That’s not to say that juvenile sexual offenses aren’t a serious problem. Juveniles account for about one-quarter of the sex offenses in the U.S. Though forcible rapes, the most serious of juvenile sex offenses, have declined since 1997, court cases for other juvenile sex offenses have risen. David Finkelhor, the director of Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, and others argue, however, that those statistics largely reflect increased reporting of juvenile sex offenses and adjudications of less serious offenses. “We are paying attention to inappropriate sexual behavior that juveniles have engaged in for generations,” he said.
....
Longo and other experts have increasingly advocated for a less punitive approach. Over the past decade, however, public policy has largely moved in the opposite direction. Courts have handed down longer sentences to juveniles for sex offenses, while some states have created tougher probation requirements and, most significant, lumped adolescents with adults in sex-offender legislation.
...
Community notification makes people feel protected — who wouldn’t want to know if a sex offender lives next door? But studies have yet to prove that the law does, in fact, improve public safety. Meanwhile, when applied to youths, the laws undercut a central tenet of the juvenile justice system. Since juvenile courts were created more than 100 years ago, youths’ records have, with exceptions in some states, been sealed and kept out of the public’s hands. The theory is that children are less responsible for their actions, and thus less blameworthy, than adults and more amenable to rehabilitation. But by publishing their photographs and addresses on the Internet, community notification suggests that juveniles with sex offenses are in a separate, distinct category from other adolescents in the juvenile justice system — more fixed in their traits and more dangerous to the public. It suggests, in other words, that they are more like adult sex offenders than they are like kids.
...
Last year, an eighth grader at a Delaware middle school arrived one morning to find kids in the hallway pointing at him and snickering. At first, the boy, Johnnie, who asked me protect his privacy by identifying him by a friend’s nickname for him, was confused. He thought it might be because of his new haircut. Then one kid called him a rapist. Another jeered, “Hey, aren’t you a sex offender?” One teenage boy threatened to beat him up.
Four years earlier, when Johnnie was 11, he put his hand on his 4-year-old half-sister’s vagina over her underwear. And then several months later, he told her to perform oral sex on him, which she did. When Johnnie’s mother found out, she called the police. She may have felt she could no longer control Johnnie, who, according to his grandmother, both adored his sister (he made pancakes and snowmen for her) and tormented her (he punched and bullied her). Perhaps his mother also worried that her son might abuse other children. It’s hard to know what went through her mind that day, because she never explained it to Johnnie or to her own mother, with whom Johnnie eventually went to live. And she did not return my phone calls.
Johnnie, who has sandy-colored hair and freckles, did not resort to violence or use a weapon, according to police records, and when a detective interviewed him, the fourth grader admitted what he’d done. Soon after, Johnnie was sentenced to a residential juvenile-sex-offender program, where he spent 16 months. By the time he was released, he was considered a role model in his program, according to records that Johnnie’s therapist, Marc Felizzi, of the Delaware Guidance Services, received from the facility. His mother, though, had little interest in reuniting the family, so Johnnie bounced from a foster home to his uncle’s before going to live with his grandmother and then, ultimately, his father.
It was just two months after starting at a new school near his grandmother’s house that Johnnie’s childhood offense became the gossip of the hallways. It wasn’t entirely clear how kids found out. Johnnie heard that the mother of a girl to whom he’d written a love note discovered him on the Delaware Sex Offender Central Registry Web site. The mother may have typed in Johnnie’s last name. Or she may have been scanning her ZIP code for local sex offenders. In any case, she found him. And there on the Internet was a photo of Johnnie when he was 11, along with his address, birth date, height and weight at the time of his offense. Below that were two police charges: one was a misdemeanor for the touching over his sister’s underwear; the other was a felony for engaging his sister in oral sex, which because it involved mouth-to-genital contact was charged as “rape second degree.”
In dozens of interviews, therapists, lawyers, teenagers and their parents told me similar stories of juveniles who, after being discovered on a sex-offender registry, have been ostracized by their peers and neighbors, kicked out of extracurricular activities or physically threatened by classmates. Experts worry that these experiences stigmatize adolescents and undermine the goals of rehabilitation. “The whole world knows you did this bad thing,” notes Elizabeth Letourneau, an associate psychology professor at the Medical University of South Carolina and an expert on juveniles with sex offenses. “You could go to treatment for five years; you could be as straight as an arrow; but the message continues to be: You are a bad person. How does that affect your self-image? How does that affect your ability to improve your behaviors?”
Just because we haven't caught the news stories doesn't mean they aren't there. And not all incidents make the news. Sex crimes in adults are on the wane. Juvenile offenders are increasing. Some of that may be an actual increase, but some of it may be classifyling as a crime an instance where the child didn't know or understand boundaries. Perhaps the part of sean's post which you considered insincere and dishonest may actually have some foundation. I'm not suggesting that the young lad who abused his little sister didn't need teaching those boundaries; nor am I saying it wasn't abuse. But I am suggesting that he may have been engaging in sexual curiosity; the two young lads who'd been friends for years, though there was an age gap, may have been experimenting. I'm not even suggesting that classifying these as assult is wrong: but I think it does show that there may be some basis for sean's claim that child sexuality is in itself deemed a problem, even if there is no 'abuse'. You don't need to agree with him. But I think it's unfair to take that as an indication of any lack of sincerity on his part.
I'm not buying any justification of sex upon children in any way, shape or form. You can tell me how its a disease or some other form of sickness or depression... whatever. I couldn't care less. You try that shit with one of my kids and I'll kill you - very painfully - PERIOD.
Second. Well stated.
I didn't see justification for adults having sex with children. I saw some insights into what it's like to grow up finding yourself attracted to children.
Sean, thank you for your posts. I think you've addressed the questions I had in a frank and thoughtful manner; probably more thoughtful than the tone of my original post deserved!
I'm not suggesting that the young lad who abused his little sister didn't need teaching those boundaries; nor am I saying it wasn't abuse.
... I'm not even suggesting that classifying these as assult is wrong: but I think it does show that there may be some basis for sean's claim that child sexuality is in itself deemed a problem, even if there is no 'abuse'. You don't need to agree with him. But I think it's unfair to take that as an indication of any lack of sincerity on his part.
When he says
Of course children deserve protection from sexual abuse, but all too often this 'protection' is simply a cipher for social control of their sexuality and of sexuality in general.
it makes me question this
As somebody who is attracted to children --and who has been conscious of and self-conscious about these feelings since well before puberty, and who has NEVER committed any kind of sexual offence--
Because I wonder if he's merely quibbling over definitions, as in 'I've never abused anyone because what I did wasn't abuse, it was love.' Maybe his statement can be taken at face value, maybe it can't. But
his sexuality is what's in question, not that of the children. Making anything about the
children's sexuality gets perilously close to the concept that all children are being "teases," as was discussed earlier in the thread.
I was able to follow along with what you were saying, right up until this point...
I know where you're coming from, Clodfobble. I have a similar reaction to 'child love' advocates claiming to be working for the sexual emancipation of children. The problem for me is, philosophically I have to agree with them. Social control of sexuality, beginning in childhood, is the bedrock of authoritarian culture.
When you use lines like the
standard party line of many abusive pedophiles you are simply inverting my own impulse to reject the 'standard party line' of sex negative puritans.
As a Popperian, I understand the difference between absolute and relative belief, and central to this is the significance of falsification. Like black swans, positive childhood sexual experiences with adults do occur, however rarely. These occurrences require us to reject the hypothesis that such experiences are necessarily harmful. The parameters of what we should term 'abuse' are therefore subject to negotiation.
But before you burst a blood vessel, I have to tell you that as an autonomous being with a capacity for independent thought, rather than a mouthpiece of the 'abusive pedophile party', I have given a great deal of thought to resolving these areas of conflict, especially where they impact on my personal relationships. Whatever my personal beliefs, I understand the social constraints on adult sexual conduct with children, and I'm quite able to conform to them.
That said, I've never compromised my personal beliefs or logic to ingratiate myself with friends, even tho there have been many occasions where it would have made my life much easier. What I have done is learn to hear their side of the story. This has been made much easier for me by their reciprocal respect for my own point of view. Being listened to and having people seek to understand why I feel the way I do has made it much easier for me to respect their feelings; in particular their visceral and intuitive, but not always logical protective instinct for their children.
There's a lot to this. I don't need to be convinced of the absolute need for particular limits a parent wishes to place around another adult's conduct with their child. The parent has a right to place those limits, however trivial. (And in the case of children for whom nobody cares, well perhaps love is something they can use, even if it includes an element of desire. What I won't forgive is adults who exploit disadvantaged children for their own personal satisfaction.)
Also, and this is important too, if the harms of non-violent, non-coercive adult/child sexual contact (or 'abuse') are primarily sociogenic, as I believe they are, that does not mean they are not still harms. Teaching a child to swim is not generally considered harmful, but if the water is infested with sharks, as these waters assuredly are, then it would be irresponsible to lead a child into them. Involving children in transgressions, causing them to keep secrets, exposing them to shame and embarrassment, all of these are clearly potentially harmful, even tho they are all consequences of society's negative evaluation of sexual pleasure.
Nobody who claims to love them could expose children to any of this with a clear conscience.
But fabricating and exaggerating extreme harms as a putative consequence of certain kinds of benign childhood sexual experience, as occurred during the masturbation panics of the past two centuries, and as is now occurring with respect to childhood sexual experiences with adults, amounts to a kind of hate speech directed against paedophiles. The suggestion that paedophilia is a kind of praeternatural evil, that calls for extraordinary measures outside the usual limits of law enforcement, is no different to the mass hysteria that drove the witch trials and constructed the Third Reich. I don't want to strike a note of aggression, but I've suffered at the hands of this moral panic, and I have a right to defend myself against it.
Finally, children do routinely suffer institutional abuse as a consequence of normal sexual conduct, in my country and in yours. I could provide more specific and recent references than I have (below) but I'm sorry I don't have them at my fingertips. One very recent case near where I live involved a six year old boy excluded from school, exposed to a wave of community hostility and subjected to intervention by child protection agencies following his pulling down a little girl's pants in the playground. I have no doubt he was harmed by his experience, and frankly it makes me nauseous to think of it. I don't want to get into a poor me thing here, but as a child I suffered serious physical and emotional abuse at the hands of adults in authority as a consequence of harmless sexual exploration. I'm irritated by your suggestion that this kind of thing is trivial or nonexistent.
Here are a couple of articles you might find enlightening.
m o l e s t e d
A mother discovers that the legal system's nightmarish "cure" for child sexual abuse can be worse than the disease.
A Question of Abuse
An influential group of therapists is promoting a new scare: children who molest other children. Those who question the murky evidence are said to be in denial. But it is the kids, taken from home and given intense therapy, who might be sufferering the most.
I'm sorry my sincerity has taken a hit. I'm trying to be as open and honest about my situation and beliefs as I can be in the circumstances. Why should your disagreeing with me constitute a mark against my honesty?
I can see where you are coming from. But because it came after a description of his own experience of being a child with those leanings (11) I got the impression he was empathising with kids who find their early explorations put them into an unsympathetic and potentially damaging system.
I do think there's a profound danger in attributing sexual curiosity and desire to young children in the context of an adult with that desire. But I do also think that there is a danger in denying children's sexuality as well. I got the impression he was adding that bit on, as someone who's exprienced growing up with his sexual orientation unacceptable. And pointing out that we have reached a level of unease, as a society, with child sexuality that we respond in an over the top fashion, even when it is two children, rather than an adult and child involved, and even when it is something which in another time might have been considered simple experimentation.
The nature of offences which can get someone (possibly someone as young as 10) onto a sex offenders' register, for life, includes such things as exposing themselves, inappropriate touching, and 'voyeurism'. A boy hiding in a tree and watching his friend's sister get undressed might be considered a criminal on that basis.
A very common sense solution for people who have love feelings for children which are sexual in nature:
You're a callous bastard Merc. Having love feelings and acting them out are two different things. We don't choose what provokes sexual desire.
You're a callous bastard Merc.
Fair enough. Having sexual feelings for children is one step away from acting them out. People who have such feelings are in great need of help from the mental health system and should be isolated from children to prevent them from ever having the opportunity and chance of taking the next step.
...I wonder if he's merely quibbling over definitions, as in 'I've never abused anyone because what I did wasn't abuse, it was love.' ...
What I said was that I have never committed any kind of sexual
offence, as formally defined by legal statute.
Of course, you'll have to take my word for that. The bottom line is whether or not you can accept that a paedophile can be a good person and speak honestly about his life and experiences.
Sean, in your experience with the pedophilic community, how many would you estimate have biological children of their own? Does being presented with this fundamentally different relationship with a child change anything for those who have them, or does it make no difference?
The bottom line is whether or not you can accept that a paedophile can be a good person and speak honestly about his life and experiences.
I can accept that possibility. I cannot, however, accept this one:
Like black swans, positive childhood sexual experiences with adults do occur, however rarely.
Sean, thank you for your posts. I think you've addressed the questions I had in a frank and thoughtful manner; probably more thoughtful than the tone of my original post deserved!
Well it was a good question and well framed, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. People need to ask these questions and think about the answers, otherwise the dialog is dominated by people like TheMercenary, and that helps no one.
Sean: I have to disagree with your analysis of the societal nature of the harm. Though, I think that is a definate factor. I do believe it is damaging to children to engage in sexual activity with adults, aside from the socialisation aspects you mention. In terms of moulding that cjhild's sense of their sexual self, it places as much power into the hands of that 'loving adult' as you claim is currently in the hands of society. However lovingly that relationship is forged (if we hypothetically place ourselves into a society which does not deem it intrinsically wrong) the power difference between an adult and a child is vast. The need a child has for adult approval places them in a vulnerable position emotionally and an adult may contribute to forging that child's sense of self in ways they could not predict. The brain does not reach full maturity until around the age of 17. Emotional maturity is an essential component of understanding one's sexual self, and without emotional maturity a person has less understanding of what they want/need, and what they don't want/need. Without the ability to define that for themselves, let alone articulate it, a child engaged in sexual activity may inadvertently be led into acts they are not emotionally ready for without the ability/capacity to change that path (without hurting someone they now feel they wish not to hurt). These are emotional conundrums that are hard enough to deal with when one has a fully developed brain, let alone when it is still forming.
That said, I don't see anything 'evil' in being attracted to children. I do think society's red line on acting on that attraction sexually is well placed tho:P
The bottom line is whether or not you can accept that a paedophile can be a good person and speak honestly about his life and experiences.
I think they can do this very well from the inside of a jail cell or a mental institution.
Hypothetically speaking Merc, if someone has never harmed a child and never will harm a child, but feels attracted to them (by whatever quirk of fate), are you really suggesting that by that unsought desire alone they 'deserve' to be locked away for life?
Sean, in your experience with the pedophilic community, how many would you estimate have biological children of their own? Does being presented with this fundamentally different relationship with a child change anything for those who have them, or does it make no difference?
Most of my knowledge of other paedophiles comes from research on published sources, but I think paedophiles are widely acknowledged to be a distinct population to incestuous parents and unlikely to offend against their own children. I think many paedophiles have adult partners and children. Perhaps this gives them easier access to children, perhaps it normalizes their attitudes, who knows. Sexual life histories are seldom completely dictated by primary orientation.
I can accept that possibility. I cannot, however, accept this one:
Like black swans, positive childhood sexual experiences with adults do occur, however rarely.
It isn't particularly important to me whether you accept that reality or not, it's a widely acknowledged fact even among professionals working in sexual abuse prevention.
My lifestyle, and ethos, and habits are all focused around not having any kind of sexual contact with children. What I think about such contacts is really academic, and not relevant to my claim to acceptance. Like anyone, I have a right to my opinion.
Hypothetically speaking Merc, if someone has never harmed a child and never will harm a child, but feels attracted to them (by whatever quirk of fate), are you really suggesting that by that unsought desire alone they 'deserve' to be locked away for life?
No, not at all. But they should be prevented from ever having the chance of having close contact with children. You can never tell who will act upon impulses of a deep sexual nature and who will not. I feel the same about men who have fantasies of rape of women. If we can ID these people early we should monitor their behavior. There is no way in hell you or anyone else is going to convince me that a person with sexual feelings towards children, who has acted on them or not, is not a danger to children. Such persons need therapy and careful monitoring. Like anyone, I have a right to my opinion. These people are an inherent danger to society IMHO.
Ok. I think that's a fair view. Though, I think there is often a huge difference between men who have sexual fantasies around rape and those who actually want to rape (lots of people enjoy fantasies of control and dominance, up to and including rape, both in terms of being in control and in terms of being controlled).
So, do you think those people, who have this unchosen desire, but have never actually hurt anyone, should be treated with cruelty and disdain?
Sean: I have to disagree with your analysis of the societal nature of the harm ... However lovingly that relationship is forged (if we hypothetically place ourselves into a society which does not deem it intrinsically wrong) the power difference between an adult and a child is vast. ... Emotional maturity is an essential component of understanding one's sexual self, and without emotional maturity a person has less understanding of what they want/need, and what they don't want/need. ...
That said, I don't see anything 'evil' in being attracted to children. I do think society's red line on acting on that attraction sexually is well placed tho:P
I can sympathise with what you're saying DanaC, and I realise it seems intuitive, but much of it won't stand close scrutiny.
It's not something I really want to get into in depth becos it isn't really important to me. However harmless adult/child sex might be in the absence of social factors, there is no such thing as an absence of social factors, and current attitudes are unlikely to change in my lifetime. I'm more interested in not having to hide or be ashamed of my orientation, and in having people understand and accept me. Justifying sex with children is unlikely to contribute to that goal.
That said, sexual conduct between adults and juveniles has been elevated in numerous cultures and is common in many other species. There's no evidence that it is intrinsically harmful. Your power analysis (which incidentally derives from Foucault, who was an advocate of paedophilia) applies equally to the power imbalance between the state and the 'sex offender'. It also ignores the power imbalance which forces the child to attend school, where he is bullied and bored, and church, where he is indoctrinated. If the child's body is so inviolate, why do we allow circumcision? If 'emotional maturity' is necessary to participate in sexual pleasure, does this mean sex between children is harmful?
Its never so simple as you think.
Given all that, I think there
are psychological risks for children in being sexually involved with adults. I think the childhood tasks of learning boundaries and identity formation can be disrupted by intense kinds of intimacy. I also think an adult is always in a sense 'in loco parentis' in any relationship with a child, and I think there is a role conflict and an incestuous component to any romantic involvement.
The difference is, I don't see these as absolute and definitive factors, they are simply things that need to be considered. I would certainly say there are good reasons why adult/child sex is forbidden in our culture, but there is no good reason for the kind of anaphylactic hyperbole displayed by TheMercenary. Children have always held an erotic appeal for adults. That appeal isn't limited to paedophiles. We need to be more realistic about it, because the current ideology of the sanctified child, pristine as an alter cloth and fragile as a damselfly, is harming our culture and harming children. It's also turning me and people like me into scapegoats for the feelings that almost everybody has and failures almost everybody is guilty of. Such is the role of the scapegoat.
Ok. I think that's a fair view. Though, I think there is often a huge difference between men who have sexual fantasies around rape and those who actually want to rape (lots of people enjoy fantasies of control and dominance, up to and including rape, both in terms of being in control and in terms of being controlled).
Fair again. But the issues of fantasy and control between consenting adults is a far different issue of those between a consenting adult and a child, don't you think? At what age do the children have the ability to discriminate between appropriate feelings of sexual desire for others and the pressure that a supposed superior adult figure has in their sphere of influence and understanding, including their current level of psychological development. (Given that children mature at different rates).
So, do you think those people, who have this unchosen desire, but have never actually hurt anyone, should be treated with cruelty and disdain?
You assume that treatment is cruel and filled with disdain. For adults it depends. For children and those whom have sexual feelings for them, yes I have no problem treating them with disdain. I do not believe that you can mix the sexual feelings of adults with those adults have for children and call them equal and equipotent.
Fair again. But the issues of fantasy and control between consenting adults is a far different issue of those between a consenting adult and a child, don't you think? At what age do the children have the ability to discriminate between appropriate feelings of sexual desire for others and the pressure that a supposed superior adult figure has in their sphere of influence and understanding, including their current level of psychological development. (Given that children mature at different rates).
That's why I put that in parenthesis, to mark it out as a separate point relating to your point about men who fantasize about rape. I do not see it as in anyway the same. I have already stated very clearly earlier in the discussion that I do not believe children are competant to make such decisions.
You assume that treatment is cruel and filled with disdain.
Actually no, I don't. I do however think you have treated sean with cruelty and disdain.
For children and those whom have sexual feelings for them, yes I have no problem treating them with disdain.
This I have difficulty with. Having feelings is not something we choose. It's not a decision made. One can decide not to act upon those feelings. One can decide to act upon them. One can decide to spend one's life in celibacy and one can decide to pray to God every day to free yourself from such desire and temptations. But we really don't get to choose what turns us on. We can hate it in ourselves and do everything we can to try and block it out. But we cannot choose what instinctively provokes desire in us.
Disdain for anyone's unchosen psychosexual make-up just makes no sense to me.
It is only fair at this point to tell you of my bias.
I was a Peds ICU nurse from 1978 to1982. In that time frame I have seen no less than 10 men arrested at the bedside in the hospital for sexual abuse and first degree murder.
I have to admit that I have no understanding and empathy for any man who admits to a sexual attraction to a child. I believe they should be isolated and if they commit a crime of sexual abuse against a child, they should be put to death.
@ sean: I very much do not ignore the power relations between state and child. I have a real problem with the dichotomy between the potential disadvantages which fall onto poorer children if school is not compulsory and the equally worrying potential for harm to children's development which comes from being forced to attend school. I also am an atheist and am not at all comfortable with the power of religious indoctrination, in particular where it relates to psycho-sexual development and gender identities.
I do believe sex between children can be emotionally damaging yes. That doesn;t mean I think it is always emotionally damaging. Just that the risk is greater where emotional maturity has not yet been reached. I had sex when I was too young to have sex. It wasn't abuse. It was probably no worse than most other people's early fumbles. But I think it would have served me better to wait until i was mature enough to take/demand from that situation what I wanted/needed.
I don't think it is at all simple *smiles*. And attitudes towards sex (in every conceivable way, if you'll pardon the pun) are extrenely fluid. The emphasis on penetrative sex as the central act within heterosexual couples can be traced very firmly to the eighteenth century. Attitudes towards sex and sexuality have gone through profound changes accross many generations.
I don't doubt that it is theoretically possible for a child to have a positive sexual experience with an adult. I daresay it has happened and will happen again. Humans have been around for a fuck of a long time and we have tried every combination. I do not see this as something which exists outside of nature, but something which occurs naturally within it.
The thing with the sanctified child is an interesting one. Again that is something that traces its roots to the eighteenth century (actually elements of it started to come up during the previous century, but it really started to take off in the latter half of the 18th). What we have now, and have had at various points since, is a bizarre combination of highly sexualised imagery around girls (young girls fashions and media, the made-up girls in pageants) at the same time as they are sanctified to the point of hysteria.
You'll have to forgive us somewhat Sean. It is something most of us, even if we are willing to try to understand, never truly can. But as you say, that perhaps is not the best way to gain acceptance anyway.
Oh, and Merc is like that with lots of people. It's difficult to see sometimse, but under that harsh, cruel, belligerent and occasionally downright nasty exterior, he's ... well, he's harsh, cruel, belligerent and downright nasty...
I jest. He isn't really:P
It is only fair at this point to tell you of my bias.
I was a Peds ICU nurse from 1978 to1982. In that time frame I have seen no less than 10 men arrested at the bedside in the hospital for sexual abuse and first degree murder.
I have to admit that I have no understanding and empathy for any man who admits to a sexual attraction to a child. I believe they should be isolated and if they commit a crime of sexual abuse against a child, they should be put to death.
I can understand that merc. I can see how that might affect how you approach this subject.
I have many friends who've been abused. It's ridiculously common. I believe the current estimate is that one in nine children will at some point in their childhood suffer some sort of sexual abuse. I think most women, in particular know other women who have talked about such abuse and confided. My best friend at school was abused by her uncle. I was her confidante, and I also have certain instinctive responses to the question of abuse.
But I still cannot fathom disdain for someone's unchosen desire or sexual orientation. Whatever I think of that desire.
It is only fair at this point to tell you of my bias.
I was a Peds ICU nurse from 1978 to1982. In that time frame I have seen no less than 10 men arrested at the bedside in the hospital for sexual abuse and first degree murder.
I have to admit that I have no understanding and empathy for any man who admits to a sexual attraction to a child. I believe they should be isolated and if they commit a crime of sexual abuse against a child, they should be put to death.
Your bias was more obvious before you told me you were a nurse. Why were the men arrested for sexual abuse in an ICU? I can only assume they were there as a consequence of vigilantism, which is something you clearly seem to approve of.
It seems ironic that you should be quoting Nietzsche, becos what you are advocating for paedophiles is to deny them any personal agency or burden of responsibility. These are the very resources paedophiles need to affirm in themselves in order to resolve the conflicts in their lives.
As you say, your lack of empathy is a consequence of your lack of understanding, but before you ease your discomfort by baying for my blood, you have a moral obligation to seek that understanding. I'm an ordinary human being, just like you are. I've probably performed as many honorable, selfless acts as you have, and altho I accept you find it hard to trust me, I don't accept you have the right, or the cause, to hate me.
Merc hates everyone. He's an equal opportunities hater
*Sticks tongue out at Merc*
Sean, is there any chance you would describe for us your first sexual encounter? Ie. were you molested?
Your bias was more obvious before you told me you were a nurse. Why were the men arrested for sexual abuse in an ICU? I can only assume they were there as a consequence of vigilantism, which is something you clearly seem to approve of.
vigilantism? Absolutely, note. Are you afraid of that? Is there a reason that you should even bring the subject up? Do you support the sexual exploitation of children? Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any organization that supports or condones the sexual exploitation of children? Let us all know where you stand so we can move forward in this discussion....
It seems ironic that you should be quoting Nietzsche, becos what you are advocating for paedophiles is to deny them any personal agency or burden of responsibility. These are the very resources paedophiles need to affirm in themselves in order to resolve the conflicts in their lives.
As you say, your lack of empathy is a consequence of your lack of understanding, but before you ease your discomfort by baying for my blood, you have a moral obligation to seek that understanding. I'm an ordinary human being, just like you are. I've probably performed as many honorable, selfless acts as you have, and altho I accept you find it hard to trust me, I don't accept you have the right, or the cause, to hate me.
I say we just cut the head off of the snake. I have no moral obligation as defined by you or anyone else for anything, you do not have the right or ability to define that. If you have sexual feelings for children you are sick human being that needs help or should you should be eliminated.
I am watching this with interest and thinking, although I am disinclined to debate. I really don't know what I believe, other than everyone is making good points here, and it's a difficult and complex question. I suppose I should do some reading on the subject, but it's not easy to read such things--there are certainly some horrific crimes perpetrated on innocent children.
I think only in the past 20 years or so has the subject even been addressed in our society. Most people, unless they are directly affected, chose not to think about pedophila, It's not a particularly pleasant topic. But how many of us are not affected, really? I think it's widespread; much more prevalent than we realized. Further, I think it's been a part of many societies over many thousands of years, even as cultural institutions, so it's stupid to ignore it or demonize it in an unthinking way. That means we have to deal with it. It is also a very emotional topic (as has been amply shown already in this thread); especially if you are directly affected.
I believe there are some very evil men who have this orientation, but I question an automatic condemnation of every person who has leanings this way to death as a heinous criminal. Once sat on a jury which had to sentence an 18 y.o. man who had fondled some young girls on a playground. It wasn't horrible, as such things go, but it was clear that this was a "first offender" situation. In the end, we chose to give a light sentence, as he was remorseful, agreed to therapy, and had family support. But it was a tough decision. ETA: He wasn't a criminal, he was a man struggling with a compulsion. And, no, the death penalty wasn't an option.
Additionally, through my work, I am involved, in defense of a church in priest/minor sexual abuse cases. There have been quite a few, and most churches are experiencing this. I certainly do not believe that these men were, or at least started out, evil, so that's why I made the remark about dissociating yourself. The only way I can think of for these religious to prey on children in direct contravention to everything they believe would be to completely turn off the mind. I'm no stranger to wrong thinking this way, but that to me, is mental illness.
BTW, in relation to the abuse lawsuits, there are some that are pretty sad; but also some that are pretty ridiculous, in which the plaintiffs blame every screw up in their lives, on a relatively minor incident, which is b.s. (It couldn't possibly be their abusive upbringing, their alcohol or drug abuse, depression, or other causes.)
So, anyway, um. . . thanks for commenting everyone. And I'll continue to be thinking about the topic. Probably forever. ETA. Sexual abuse has touched my life in other, more personal ways, so I have to find a way to deal with it as it comes. My wish is for none of you or yours to have serious emotional consequences from any of this stuff.
Good post Cloud. Right on.
Some good stuff here, I'm telling you folks. :)
but I edited it a bunch, so you might check! bad habit, I suppose.
Having sexual feelings for children is one step away from acting them out.
In the same way that having guns is one step away from killing people?
Ohhhh! She shoots, she scores! lol.
...except, of course, you choose to buy the gun. which maybe puts you a step closer to acting it out.....
Excellent point Monnie. Also, I don;t think that's a sexual orientation, unless you're Urbane :P
Some of what Sean is saying makes a lot of sense to me; and some of it creeps me out. I appreciate the opportunity to hear his viewpoint, however (isn't the 'Net amazing?)
There are all sorts of human rights issues involved, including the rights of everyone affected, and human trafficking, which is a big problem still in the world. Even in trying to fix the problem, there are abuses. But the big issue for me, as in all sexual conduct, is consent. No sex that's not consensual!
Of course, it's all theoretical until someone touches your child.
I don't think it is at all simple *smiles*. And attitudes towards sex (in every conceivable way, if you'll pardon the pun) are extrenely fluid. The emphasis on penetrative sex as the central act within heterosexual couples can be traced very firmly to the eighteenth century. Attitudes towards sex and sexuality have gone through profound changes accross many generations.
It's definitely complicated and it's fraught with paradox and contradiction. That's why I get so irritated by people's categorical pronouncements on what is and what isn't. I get particularly annoyed when people confront me with dictums I know to be false through my own experience.
For example, I spent most of my childhood (8 years) at boarding school. The one adult in my life at that time who showed me affection, love, care and attention was, I now know, attracted to young boys. He never engaged in any kind of inappropriate conduct with me, he just looked after me and offered me friendship. In hindsight, there was a mildly erotic aspect to our friendship and some physical affection, but it didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. Since that time, right up til the present day, I've had to listen to people vilify him and speculate about his sexuality, and to be honest, it distresses me. He was like a father for me.
Maybe I was lucky. Maybe he went further with other boys, but if he did, they've never publicised it. The question is, what is the difference between this beneficial relationship between a child an a paedophile and one which extends to physical intimacy? If all these things you say about 'power' and 'emotional maturity' are going to problematize eroticism between an adult and a child, wouldn't they apply regardless of any physical expression? This is certainly the view held by some.
And conversely, what about the situations where sexual conduct is
only about pleasure, or curiosity or whatever else outside of an emotional component? What about sex that flies right past a child's radar becos he or she is too young to identify it as anything other than enjoyable touch? The widespread tradition of masturbating young children to induce sleep, found from Europe and Asia to South America, and only ever seen as problematic since the rise of middle class sexual mores in Europe in the 18th century, is a simple sex act that occurs outside of any context of power. It is a simple trade of pleasure seeking and pleasure giving that humans have made for millennia.
And as you suggest, the
whole point of the prohibition of these fuzzy borders of sexual conduct has been to reinforce the compulsory, heterosexual, penetrative reproductive 'sex' that western instrumentalism mandates as the sole valid expression of erotic feeling (with recent special allowances made for suburban middle class monogamous gay couples...).
But would young teens be getting comatose at parties and having unprotected intercourse with random strangers if they'd been developed a sense of self respect and competency as sexual beings from childhood? I doubt it. Consider the lunacy around the dismissal of
Joycelyn Elders. Doesn't that tell you anything?
I know that sex isn't all sunshine and light. The lot of girls especially has been very harsh in traditional cultures and protection of girls from sexual exploitation is a significant mark of progress in modern culture, but the day it is forbidden to critique social constraints on sexual expression is the day that progress will cease.
And as you suggest, the whole point of the prohibition of these fuzzy borders of sexual conduct has been to reinforce the compulsory, heterosexual, penetrative reproductive 'sex' that western instrumentalism mandates as the sole valid expression of erotic feeling
That absolutely ties in with my reading from that period. It's amazing how many culturally acceptable forms of sexual expression did become stigmatised during this time. Not just in terms of who we select as partners, but also in terms of how and when we court them and what behaviour is acceptable in that courtship, and what was acceptable and desirable to do with them. A lot of stuff we would consider very sexual and have only recently started talking about again (last few decades) were entirely normal within the courtship rituals of the average labouring-class Briton prior to the big shift in sexual mores during the 18th century.
Some of what Sean is saying makes a lot of sense to me; and some of it creeps me out. I appreciate the opportunity to hear his viewpoint, however (isn't the 'Net amazing?)
There are all sorts of human rights issues involved, including the rights of everyone affected, and human trafficking, which is a big problem still in the world. Even in trying to fix the problem, there are abuses. But the big issue for me, as in all sexual conduct, is consent. No sex that's not consensual!
Of course, it's all theoretical until someone touches your child.
Thanks for your comments Cloud. I need to retire and consider before I say much else. I'm an unapologetic sexual libertarian. I don't know what if anything this has to do with my orientation, but I do know that it gives people ammunition against me.
I had an idiosyncratic childhood that involved a number of atypical factors, including a medical condition that impacted on my sexual development. As a consequence, I was conscious of my sexual body from an early age. I also had to confront a variety of issues stemming from all this, and I think that has contributed toward my adult philosophy of resisting shaming practices. I'm not sure, but I suspect these kinds of experiences might be quite common among paedophiles.
I'd like to know what in particular creeps you out. I'm not challenging you. I
know this stuff can do that. It might sound odd, but I put a lot of effort into not being creepy. For men attracted to women, its clear what's creepy and what's acceptable, but its harder when you're attracted to children.
Any kind of interest can seem creepy, even when it's innocent.
I'm less interested in what adults think about me than I am in how children themselves interpret my conduct, but I am open to adult guidance. That's what I've been trying to say here, mostly.
Anyway, thanks.
In the same way that having guns is one step away from killing people?
Hmmmmm.... I have 27 guns and don't really think about killing anyone. Not that I couldn't if needed, but not something I think about.
Unlike a pedophile who wants to have sex with your children.
He never engaged in any kind of inappropriate conduct with me, he just looked after me and offered me friendship. In hindsight, there was a mildly erotic aspect to our friendship and some physical affection, but it didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. Since that time, right up til the present day, I've had to listen to people vilify him and speculate about his sexuality, and to be honest, it distresses me. He was like a father for me.
Maybe I was lucky. Maybe he went further with other boys, but if he did, they've never publicised it. The question is, what is the difference between this beneficial relationship between a child an a paedophile and one which extends to physical intimacy? If all these things you say about 'power' and 'emotional maturity' are going to problematize eroticism between an adult and a child, wouldn't they apply regardless of any physical expression? This is certainly the view held by some.
I'm glad you had a positive experience with this sort of thing--though I'll be honest and say that I don't think it was actually that positive for you overall. There's no way we can know how you would have turned out if you'd never had this relationship with this adult, so the point is moot.
However, as a counter to your anecdote, I have my own experience with this type of situation. Except in my case, the adult in question made me massively uncomfortable every moment I had to be around him. The fact that he didn't touch me sexually didn't make his touch any less abhorrent, and his stated and demonstrated "love" for me put me in a terrible position of resenting him and fearing the loss of his approval. As far as he knew I appreciated his company and loved him back, because I felt I had no choice. I could sense from a young age what his feelings were regardless of the fact that he never acted on them. And while I suppose I can appreciate the fact that he never pushed it farther, that didn't stop the repeated nightmares about being raped by him, which continued for years after I ceased having to be in contact with him.
This man's power and emotional abuse were indeed inherent in his "love" for me. And while you may say your relationship with your mentor had a positive effect on you, the fact remains that there was no way your mentor could have known for sure that was how it would turn out. Maybe it didn't work out as well with other boys, whether he touched them or not. I say if what you're doing has the chance of emotionally scarring a child, you must not do it, even if it falls within the realm of "harmless" from a legal standpoint.
Sean, is there any chance you would describe for us your first sexual encounter? Ie. were you molested?
No I was never molested, altho you might be interested in some other comments I've made to Cloud and DanaC. I mentioned a medical condition, which included a mild form of intersex involving genital surgery, and also an endocrine disturbance that was treated with drugs. These kinds of experience often impact on adult sexuality, and I am currently researching in that area. I think there is probably a lot more counseling available for children like me these days.
Besides this, I had some difficult experiences in my childhood, which I've already mentioned. Some violence and some other kinds of abuse, and also some paradoxes. For one, altho I wasn't sexually precocious (quite the opposite, I had a very late puberty) I really loved girls when I was a young boy, and I also had a lot of opportunities for sex play. This was always consensual and enjoyable, and in many ways my sex life up until age ten was as good as it's ever been.
I don't subscribe to the abused/abuser theory, but I'm open to the possibility that my childhood has influenced the way I feel now. I'm resistant to simplistic pathologizing tho.
I think a large part of one of the problems with this topic -and it extends outside of this topic also- is that some people wish to live in denial of the sexuality of children. Sure, they'll tell funny stories of theri 4yo playing with his willy in the supermarket. But they refuse to think of it as sexual. Some little kids play with their genitals. A lot. Enough that they have to be getting something out of it. It is sexual.
But just because they know it feels good, doesn't mean they know what it's for. And doesn't make it OK to have sex with them. But they will have sex with each other, and play with each others genitals. And they won't necessarily know it's wrong. They can be sexual beings. It's still not OK for adults to have sex with them. They may even flirt with and invite the adults. It's still not OK -they're not able to give informed consent. If they can't give consent, who can? Their parents. Well, who wants to ask the parents of the child and what parents wants to hear that question>
So we have a law. with an arbitrary age limit, but one that will definitely outlaw all sex with physically immature juveniles. A law that pretty much states that children are not for sex. (good!) Even with other children (good!) So let's hang them all! (wait... my 15yo got drunk and fucked the class slapper at a party and he has to die...? your and my nine-year-olds decided to play doctor on their sleepover.......)
Why is this denial of children's sexuality a problem?
(1) the laws in place to prevent adults messing with children are also applied to children messing with children. And they are -as they should be for adults- pretty harsh laws. But 11yo Buckie knows it feels good when he bullies his little sister into giving him her candy. And he knows if feels good when he plays with his todger. And he knows it feels good when his momma rubs his back. And he knows it feels good when he bullies his sister into rubbing his dick. We adults can see what's wrong with this picture and how to define the degrees of badness here, but can little Buckie? And does he deserve a lifelong punishment for that? or execution?
(2) When presented with evidence of something we don't believe in, we try hard to find some other cause. If our children are behaving in a sexual manner, it must be the fault of an adult somewhere. Must be pedophiles. Strike 1. Pedophiles: Wait... we haven't even come out of the closet yet and already you're stoning us...... Sean here has presented an argument that you can have these leanings and not act on them. How often do you think he gets that chance? He'd stand a better chance of a fair hearing if he was born black into the heart of a KKK family
(3) Pedophiles don't deny the sexuality of children. They are the people who screamed "The emporer is naked". The fact that they run a rival tailoring outfit that would run him up a suit in a jiffy given the go-ahead by the govermnment doesn't work in their favor.
I wouldn't invite Sean to babysit my children. But if he became a regular dwellar, I'd probably stop by one one of our road trips, if invited. With the children. And the hubby. I think he's a Brit, though, so it ain't happening soon with airfares the way they are! :lol:
sorry if this seems disjointed and not in synch with the convo... it's been a long time in the verbalization and it still ain't perfect, but Ineed sleep
Fucking awesome post monnie.
... the fact remains that there was no way your mentor could have known for sure that was how it would turn out. Maybe it didn't work out as well with other boys, whether he touched them or not. I say if what you're doing has the chance of emotionally scarring a child, you must not do it, even if it falls within the realm of "harmless" from a legal standpoint.
I'm inclined to agree with you Clodfobble. I think the strength in this relationship was that it was focused outward, on things we both enjoyed doing, and I always experienced his interest as optional and not oppressive. He also stood up for me against other adults on more than one occasion, at some cost to himself, which I think reflected the fact that it was a friendship that was acknowledged by others, and not just something 'between us'.
But I agree with you that the Pygmalion situation, 'grooming' in other words, even where nothing specifically sexual is intended, is an abuse of the adult's status and power.
As I've said, I've sought out friendship with kids on occasions, and possibly made myself vulnerable to accusations of this kind. In fact, I'm not even going to deny that I've been guilty of being over affectionate, but I've also tried very hard to monitor my conduct, and I've sought advice and input from other adults, including parents.
I think over time I've grown more skilled at stepping back when I need to, and I think this is part of a learning process. No one was going to help me with any of this, I've had to figure it all out for myself. I could feel bitter that no constructive help is available, but I don't, I just feel determined not to hurt anybody and determined to find happiness.
I've always believed, and always will believe that my interest in kids can be a force for good, and that I'm capable of expressing my feelings with care, sensitivity and restraint. If TheMercenary disagrees and wants to come after me with his 27 guns, let him. I'm no pussy either.
Fucking awesome post monnie.
thanks. I'll probably be arrested by the parent police tomorrow. Remember the incest topic? (that was this forum, right?) :lol:
Just watch out for anyone with a rope in their hands and half a dozen mates :P
I say if what you're doing has the chance of emotionally scarring a child, you must not do it, even if it falls within the realm of "harmless" from a legal standpoint.
Wait wait wait, i missed this until sean quoted it.
Doesn't the whole task of being a parent fall into the category of having "a chance of emotionally scarring a child"? i have emotional scars from my parents and they had no intent to harm me (mostly) -they just wanted to harm each other and we got int the crossfire.
Doesn't the whole task of being a parent fall into the category of having "a chance of emotionally scarring a child"? i have emotional scars from my parents and they had no intent to harm me (mostly) -they just wanted to harm each other and we got int the crossfire.
:D you mean like this...
This Be The Verse?
But I think there's an important point I should make. Altho I do observe the legal boundaries, they aren't my primary guide.
I don't consider a kind of conduct with children to be ok just becos it's not illegal. My standards are more rigorous than that, and one of the things I do to develop those standards is have conversations like this one.
It may come as a shock, but I am honestly committed to the welfare of children. Also, I doubt I'm the only paedophile in history who's been so moved ... the name Robert Baden-Powell springs to mind.
.... I wouldn't invite Sean to babysit my children. But if he became a regular dwellar, I'd probably stop by one one of our road trips, if invited. With the children. And the hubby. I think he's a Brit, though, so it ain't happening soon with airfares the way they are! :lol: ...
Thanks monster. Good points.
And I can live without babysitting your kids, altho I am pretty good at it. Also, I'm a
lot further away than Britain.
Doesn't the whole task of being a parent fall into the category of having "a chance of emotionally scarring a child"? i have emotional scars from my parents and they had no intent to harm me (mostly) -they just wanted to harm each other and we got int the crossfire.
It's a question of forethought. I would suggest to most parents that, yes, harming the other parent is likely to have negative repurcussions on the children, and they should avoid doing it. Obviously there will be times when we all inadvertently scar our children, but we make the best effort we can to stop and consider each choice we make. What's the risk, and how easy is it to avoid that risk? In the case of a pedophile befriending and loving a child (albeit in a nonsexual way,) I'd say the risk is high enough, and avoiding the situation entirely is possible in most cases.
I think you overestimate most people's thinking abilities. You are smarter than the average bear. Most people are the average bear.
How many people report emotional scars from their parents? And how many from pedophiles? and how many were raped by their parents step-parents compared to by pedophile non-family members
Most Parents are a danger to their children, it's a wonder so many of us make it through to the other side.
I'm glad you had a positive experience with this sort of thing--though I'll be honest and say that I don't think it was actually that positive for you overall. There's no way we can know how you would have turned out if you'd never had this relationship with this adult, so the point is moot.
That's true Clodfobble, but let me say something else. This person was an accomplished mountaineer. Although I also came from a mountain background, he is the person who introduced me to technical alpine climbing. This pursuit, more than any other single thing, gave me the self discipline and confidence to overcome what have at times been daunting odds. There's much more to this, but I can't go into it here.
what mountains am i talking about? these...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Mtcook1600x1200.jpg
http://www.cleangreen.co.nz/gallery1/wanaka/Mt%20Aspiring.jpg
I have my own experience with this type of situation. Except in my case, the adult in question made me massively uncomfortable every moment I had to be around him. The fact that he didn't touch me sexually didn't make his touch any less abhorrent, and his stated and demonstrated "love" for me put me in a terrible position of resenting him and fearing the loss of his approval.
I'm sorry you had this experience, and I certainly have no wish to trivialize it. It sounds like this man caused you real harm, and I'd contend that your experience was quite different from mine.
I have to say, I feel a strong sense of solidarity with most paedophiles, even those who are guilty of sexual offences and less obvious errors of judgement. That sympathy doesn't extend to sadists and child abusers.
I feel desperately sad for children that suffer through the wrong actions of paedophiles, and when I read a story in the paper that makes me think "there but for the Grace of God", it makes me just as sad. One reason I'm engaged in this conversation is because I want to make it possible for people like me to feel less alone and more able to meet their emotional needs without harming kids.
It must be obvious to most of you here that there's more to this than draconian punishments.
I think you've given some of us a lot to think about sean.
So, do you still go mountain climbing?
Most Parents are a danger to their children, it's a wonder so many of us make it through to the other side.
:D
From sean's post #104
For one, altho I wasn't sexually precocious (quite the opposite, I had a very late puberty) I really loved girls when I was a young boy, and I also had a lot of opportunities for sex play. This was always consensual and enjoyable, and in many ways my sex life up until age ten was as good as it's ever been.
Question: At what age did you become sexually active?
Hmmmmm.... I have 27 guns and don't really think about killing anyone. Not that I couldn't if needed, but not something I think about...
ORLY?????
I'm not buying any justification of sex upon children in any way, shape or form. You can tell me how its a disease or some other form of sickness or depression... whatever. I couldn't care less. You try that shit with one of my kids and I'll kill you - very painfully - PERIOD.
Second. Well stated.
vigilantism? Absolutely, note. ..
I say we just cut the head off of the snake... ...
You can never tell who will act upon impulses of a deep murderous nature and who will not. I feel the same about men who have fantasies of rape of women. If we can ID these people early we should monitor their behavior. There is no way in hell you or anyone else is going to convince me that a person with murderous feelings, who has acted on them or not, is not a danger to society at large. Such persons need therapy and careful monitoring. Like anyone, I have a right to my opinion. These people are an inherent danger to society IMHO.
When I was a thirteen year old boy, I really wanted to have sex with my adult female teacher. Am I a reverse pedophile? An antipedophile? An elihpodep?:blush:
Note to self: Never date anyone named sean. Especially if it is just a nick-name.
Ok I'm out!
Question: At what age did you become sexually active?
It depends on your definition. Like I said I was far from precocious physically, but I can remember masturbating alone at four or five and playing doctors with girls from then until I was sent to boarding school around age ten. My family was tolerant of this kind of play, but I got in trouble at school around this time for fooling around with some older boys. I was a very bright kid, but also kind of naughty. I think I was quite a 'sexual' and sensual child, but not pathologically so.
I was still fairly naive at twelve or thirteen. I didn't have an orgasm or start growing pubic hair until a year or two after that. So I was completely prepubescent, but I was also very curious about sex and did all I could to find out more. Becos I was at boarding school I had no contact with girls, but I did have consensual sexual experiences with much older, physically mature boys. Our activities were discovered and prompted a violent, abusive, homophobic reaction from adult authorities. This had a serious impact on the rest of my schooling. Given the difference in age and maturity, I would likely be cast in the role of victim today, but back then I was seen as the instigator, a seductive little puck, and I was called filthy and disgusting.
At high school (a different all male boarding school) I wasn't remotely attracted to my male peers and girls my age seemed matronly rather than sexy. I fantasized about little girls and had a very active sex life with Rosie Palm and her five lovely daughters. I had adult girlfriends after I left school and lost my virginity around age 20. I've had long term adult relationships, and fallen in love with two or three different women. I'd have another adult relationship now if the opportunity presented itself. I like women and I get along very well with them.
I don't know if my overt sexual development in those years is really much different to a lot of other boys. My attraction to kids has manifested itself in more subtle ways. I enjoyed being around younger kids, especially little girls, when I was a preteen and I fantasized about them right thru my teens. As an adult I've fallen in love with two or three little girls, and these remain very significant experiences in my life. I'm kind of 'attuned' to children in a way I'm not to women. A picture of an 18 year old girl in a bikini is barely interesting to me, but a picture of an 8 year old girl in a bikini is appealing and fascinating.
It's hard to explain. Putting it in these terms overemphasizes the sexual element, but it would also be a distortion to deny that element. Because I'm trying to describe my sexuality here, I'm necessarily dwelling on it, which probably seems exhibitionistic, and 'creepy' as Cloud suggested. If she were describing her sexual fantasies, that might seem creepy too.
I love kids. I love the way they smell and the sound of their voices. I love the way their minds work and the things they say. I love the way they move and the way they look. Clearly I feel a little soppy and romantic about them at times, but I'm also quite capable of being a realistic and responsible caregiver. Like I say, it's not all about sex, but my sexual development has been subtly biased by that interest in kids right thru my pre-adult and adult life.
When or how I became 'sexually active' hasn't really been remarkable or particularly relevant to that, I don't think...
When I was a thirteen year old boy, I really wanted to have sex with my adult female teacher. Am I a reverse pedophile? An antipedophile? An elihpodep?:blush:
I'd say it makes you completely normal.
:|
So, do you still go mountain climbing?
yep. but not hard climbing.
Hard climbing? Is that like climbing without ropes, or does it refer to the difficulty of the mountain itself?
Sean, thank you for your posts and your honesty.
Dana & Mon, thank you for saying a lot of what I would have said, had I been following this thread more diligently!
Question for Merc: I have an strong compulsion to break the law -- by punching you in the snoot. Repeatedly. Should I have my head cut off too? Maybe we should bring in Shari'a a la Merc for the duration.
Hard climbing?
It means mostly exposed, mostly standing belays, high chance of spending a night out, objective dangers, 20 hour days..
I still like to climb, but I'm too old for all that stuff now. I like to ski home to a brew and a sleeping bag.
Sean, thank you for your posts and your honesty.
Thank you Pie. I've said more than I intended, and was wondering if it was too much and I'd offended people. Apologies to anybody if I did.
The thing with me is that I haven't had a terrible life, I've had it pretty good overall. I had some challenges when I was a kid, but I got past most of them. What it's taken longer to process is a few cruel, shitty things that were done to me in my childhood by adults who were so convinced they were right they just acted like robots.
So, paedophiles aren't the only kinds of adults who harm kids, and despite what some people like to think, there are worse things than being felt up by a lonely old man.
More to the point, not all paedophiles harm kids. Believe it or not, the boundaries aren't that hard to understand, even for a paedophile.
What is hard is having a place in your heart for children (who so often go wanting for time from a sympathetic adult) and knowing you are happy in their company, and knowing you can fall for them as easily and as lightly as a fly landing on a watermelon, and then to be indoctrinated with this toxic belief that you have a radioctive core that will kill a child's soul as surely as kryptonite killing superman.
You spend a lifetime spitting up this stinking lie, then as soon as you start to believe in your own goodness, someone else comes along with another dose, lifting the lid on it like a dead rat in bucket of water.
It's not fair and it doesn't help anybody. It's been really great to have people here listen and I'm very grateful. I don't mind some people getting angry, but I hope they can at least see that I'm trying to be honest.
:)
and knowing you can fall for them as easily and as lightly as a fly landing on a watermelon,
What happens when they grow up? Do you still love them?
What happens when they grow up? Do you still love them?
It changes. You know, a lot of
parents go thru a kind of grief when their kids hit puberty. They know they can't love their adult children in the same way they did when they were babies, and I guess it's similar.
I have a couple of very close adult friends, one male and one female, who I've been friends with since they were little. I was in love with one of them when she was a child, and she knows about that. It's slightly embarrassing, but not cripplingly so. When she was eleven she would offer and seek advice as easily as she does now. We're pretty close, but no, I'm not in love with her any more. Besides, she has a boyfriend.
not 'in love', but love, yeah definitely. for both of them.
Are you an aussie or a kiwi? Just being nosy, not trying to stalk you, honest! :lol:
Are you an aussie or a kiwi? Just being nosy, not trying to stalk you, honest! :lol:
flightless and nocturnal, as charged.
:eek:
aha. thanks. yeah, unlikely to get stalked my my clan anytime soon...
What happens when they grow up? Do you still love them?
Also, you know, its not all about grand passions. Sometimes being attracted to kids simply means being able to tolerate one of them for slightly longer than might otherwise be the case, or maybe making a connection for a couple of hours with a kid you'll never see again.
When I talk about falling in love, its the same as it is for most people. I don't fall in love every five minutes. There are less than a handful of kids who have been a really significant presence in my life. So while these have been episodes, and not my whole life, they've had a real impact on me. That's one reason I can't discount my experiences as easily as some people think I ought to. Also, I'm comfortable that my friendship has been a positive experience for those kids, and I've been told as much by them and people around them.
Maybe love's the wrong word, but it's the word that seems to fit.
