A Primer on Pedophilia
Like most other terms used in psychiatry and politics, the meaning appears to be self-evident, but it's actually wrong. Other examples include "insane," "antisocial" (it means criminal), and "inflammable." ("Inflammable means flammable? What a country!")
Pedophile had originally been divided into two groups, fixated and regressed. Interestingly, even these terms don't mean what they look like they mean. They don't describe what kind of kid the pedophile likes; they describe why he is a pedophile.
Fixated pedophiles are fixed in a certain developmental stage, and are exclusively attracted to kids.
Regressed pedophiles, using the original definition, prefer adults but, if stressed, will regress to an earlier developmental stage; this regression leads them to prefer children. The regressed pedophile likes kids because he himself has "become" a kid (more technically: he regresses to a pregenital sexuality, which finds its satisfaction in oral (e.g. masturbation, fetishism) or anal impulses (e.g. sadomasochism) and its natural compatriot, the child.)
The terms homosexual and heterosexual apply to the primary object choice, not necessarily the sex of the victim (e.g. "heterosexual molester of boys.") Fixated pedophiles tend to be (i.e. think of themselves as) homosexual, and regressed (think of themselves as) heterosexual.
But the easiest way, and most forensically useful way, is to simply describe pedophiles according to their sexual object preference: Fixated pedophiles are true pedophiles, they are only sexually aroused by kids. Opportunistic (regressed) pedophiles would rather have a hot 25 year old, but will take the best offer. Regressed pedophiles don't think they are pedophiles.
Remember, whether they are homosexual or not isn't the differentiating factor (e.g. male homosexual regressed pedophiles prefer adult men but would settle for a kid. Heterosexual fixated pedophiles prefer kids.)
An example of the fantasy life of each is illustrative: the fixated pedophile might be married, but will take a feature of the adult and "see" it as child like. Maybe the slope of the calf, the hair style, etc. Fetishism is also important, and there is a clear (to the pedophile, not to anyone else) direct link to children (a type of cloth or pattern; sounds such as bells, crowds; language or words, etc.)
The regressed, or opportunistic, pedophile does the opposite: "I know she's only 13, but have you seen her ass?!"
So now you can see why all of our attempts at catching pedophiles before they offend are doomed to absolute failure: they're everywhere. I know no one will admit this, but remember how hot you thought Britney Spears was in the original video "Hit Me Baby One More Time?" Guess what. You're a pedophile. You say, "but I'd never act on it." Well, you say a lot of things.
But that's the crux, of course: desire and action are very different things, and, arguably are controlled by entirely different parts of the brain, or personality factors, or superego departments. Not a day goes by I don't want to plasma gun 50 people I meet. But, so far body count = 0. This is why we can only be judged on our behaviors, not our thoughts (though a person must judge himself on his thoughts.)
You don't know what a person is capable of until they are presented with the temptation, so I'm saying we shouldn't tempt them. The problem with opportunistic pedophilia is that it is opportunistic, not pedophilia. The goal isn't the child; it's ejaculation. And you simply don't know where a person's "line in the sand" for ejaculation is. At what point do they say, "this is probably not right?" Not: "this is wrong," that's usually easy to describe. Probably wrong. 16? 14 if they're famous? 12 if you're in Thailand?
The guy on the IM or chat who gets a 14 year old girl to meet him at the pier-- he's a "regressed pedophile." He would have liked her to have been a 25 year old NFL cheerleader; but, let's face it, a 25 year old NFL cheerleader would sooner swallow her own eye than hook up with this freak, and he knows it. So he bypasses her ("they're all sluts") and cons a 14 year old. It's no surprise that 75% of heterosexual pedophiles described their offenses as "compensation."
Fixated pedophiles are sometimes described as "child centered." In fact, they see themselves as the peers of the child, and prefer to interact with the child on its level (while regressed pedophiles try to elevate the interaction with the kid to adult level.) They're not in it "for the sex" but for the emotional connection. For the regressed, the sex is the whole point. And here's your forensic problem: a regressed pedophile kidnaps a kid to have sex with. Once done, well, anything can happen. If the kid "liked it," (maybe defined as "didn't put up too much of a fight") there's a good chance they'll meet again. But if the kid didn't like it... A fixated pedophile kidnaps a kid to-- live with. That fantasy rarely gets realized (kid likely doesn't want to move in) and violence can therefore occur. But appreciate the difference: for a regressed pedophile, the violence is part of the offense. For the fixated, violence is secondary or utilitarian.
I can already hear the screaming objections. Look, I'm not trying to defend anyone, I'm trying to explain the offenses, the thinking. In simple terms, your child is a billion times more at risk from "pedophilia" with an adult they know (30% of victims have known their attacker for a full year prior to the offense), who is already married with kids of his own that he has not molested, then they are from the registered pedophile who lives in your city who was hoarding child porn in his mom's basement. I know it sounds cooler and more self-righteous to rail against the pedophile than to worry about your (weak-minded) social contacts, because you think you know them, and especially since they outnumber you. By a lot.
You say, "but certainly not everyone is a pedophile, there must be something specifically different about them?" Or, if you work for the Supreme Court: "there must be some mental abnormality which is properly the domain of medicine?"
No. Not in a way that's useful. For example, a very recent MRI study of fixated pedophiles vs. controls found pedophiles had decreases in grey matter (smaller brains), especially in certain brain regions (orbitofrontal, ventral striatum, limbic regions), and generally decreased intelligence. But before you see this as proof that pedophilia finds its origins in brain biology, the physical brain changes didn't predict anything you might expect (number of offenses, psychopathy, etc)-- but it did predict obsessiveness. In other words, this study found biological evidence of OCD spectrum pathology, but not of pedophilia, per se. No, pedophilia isn't a disease with distinct physical pathology, and no, it isn't properly the domain of psychiatry.
I may write a "profile" of the pedophilic sex offender, and another post reviewing the developmental and biological studies so far. Or, I may just go have a drink (or 4.)
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
Recommend to a Friend
March 24, 2007 6:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hi, great blog! I especially loved the children of therapists posts, being one myself.
You post a great deal on the limitations of the mental health professions, but I thought I would suggest writing a post on what it is you think the mental health industry actually IS good for. You say pedophilia is not in the domain of psychiatry, but is there anything that in your opinion emphatically IS in the domain of psychiatry?
March 24, 2007 9:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is what I dont understand:
Society gets upset about pedophilia--but does little or nothing to keep the fashion industry from marketing slutty clothes to grade school and middle school aged children.
Yuck.
I'm not saying kids should be dressed like nuns. But thirty to forty years ago, when I was in grade school, girl's clothing was gender specific but not sexualized, as it is today.
And this was Los Angeles, in the public school system, not an Amish community.
If we are going to get all upset about the hazards of pedophilia, stop marketing trashy clothes to girls younger than 14.
March 24, 2007 10:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
AK, I disagree with your take on clothing being a risk factor for pedophilia. The problem stems not from how children look, but in the evaluation of right/wrong and impulse control in the pedophile. The argument that a victim of sexual assault or other attack, child or adult, bears some culpability for the assault based on clothing or appearance is tired and nonproductive.
Children's clothing becoming more seductive and adult is a problem only if we somehow tacitly accept that if children look too grown up, too sexy (wait, who finds children sexy again?), someone out there won't be able to help himself. It's a copout that lets us avoid looking at the actual problem of pedophilia and how our society fosters it.
Thsi argument comes up frequently in discussions of rape on feminist blogs, and it can be summed up like this: the only thing that causes a woman to be raped is the presence of a rapist. A woman can go out in tiny skirts and drink herself under the table for years, and be raped at home in her nightgown. Difference? The rapist's presence.
The same applies to children. The deciding factor in whether a child is molested by a pedophile? The presence of a pedopile.
March 25, 2007 8:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I suggest two other 'lines' be drawn:
1. Whether the object choice is pre- or post pubertal should make a difference. Prepubertal is pedophilic, post-pubertal (say 16-17y) is simply unethical, illegal and skeevy.
2. Mustachioed vs Nonmustachioed. Though this may a confound for regressed vs fixed, respectively.
PS: I cannot beleive the number of people who ask 'what, then, is the purview of psychiatry?' How about the treatment of subjectively painful mood, thought or behavioral symptoms using empirically-derived methods. Nothing else.
March 25, 2007 3:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
C. Burke, I agree with you. That being said, I also have to question what the hell is wrong with parents who dress their little girls like they are young women. I was purchasing jeans for a five year old girl not too long ago, and I was disgusted at the fact that stores are selling jeans that fit low on the hip for children who still have all their baby teeth. The child is five. What message are they trying to send? It's creepy.
March 25, 2007 3:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I would like to see Jessica's Law passed in all states. It requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison and lifetime electronic monitoring of adults convicted of lewd or lascivious acts against a victim less than twelve years of age. It makes sexual battery or rape of a child less than twelve years of age a capital felony, punishable only by death or life imprisonment with no chance of parole. Of course, I would prefer the take-them-out-back-and-put-a-bullet-in-their-brain approach, but some would consider that too mean.
October 26, 2007 9:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
one point ive always made to friends in debates, in which I always get heat from, is back in the old days adults would marry younger girls like 14 or 15. My question is in the old days, a prominent wealthy man would pick a young girl, why? in your reasoning on the blog its because he couldn't get a hot 25 year old. but i have to disagree
Well, kind reader of somewhat suspicious intentions, these are both time and setting specific. 400 years ago, I'm sure youth and vitality/birthing hips were the main factors, along with dowry and willingness to tolerate affairs :-) The reason it's different now is that relationships are considered to be considerably more equitable, i.e. the woman gets to have as much say in being with you as you do in choosing her. (Though any guy under 89 will agree that women hold all the cards in dating! JUST KIDDING EVERYONE RELAX.) But kids are considered not able to make that choice as freely, especially if there is a power differential, e.g. you are older.
Look at it this way: what are the reasons why someone would want a 15 year old and not a 25 year old? What does a 15 yo have that a 25 yo doesn't have? I'm going to leave aside the unusual case of "I fell in love with this girl here who happens to be 15" and focus on people who like 15 year olds more than 25 year olds. Why?
November 8, 2007 7:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
As someone who was molested at 15, I have been giving a great deal of thought lately to exactly that question. Legal culpability lies with the adult, but where is the moral culpability?
It feels very intuitively correct that the pre/postpubertal status of the child distinguishes the type of pedophile. In my case the molester was unhappily married with children, and he was very specifically a person who bowed to conventional morality rather than possessing an internal sense of right/wrong, and showed poor impulse control combined with alcohol. He is a very morally rigid and ethical person. In fact he is a psychiatrist. Not my psychiatrist. I read with great interest the blog on how children of pdocs go 'off' in the same way, and why, very insightful.
Incidentally, my parents met and began a sexual relationship when he was 23 and she was 15. They married a week after she graduated from high school, and the marriage lasted 7 years. She was unusually mature and aggressive, and he was unusually immature and passive. I don't doubt that she seduced him. We're not talking about Appalachia, rather Bos-Wash; he is an electrical engineer and she a sociologist.
The difference being that she was interested and I wasn't. The similarity being the reason she didn't rescue me. The extreme disparity in age (a generation) being her objection. It isn't only children and pedophiles who have a poor grip on right/wrong.
The psychiatrist went unpunished beyond the breakup of his marriage, remarried, and went on to a series of mistresses very similar to me but 10 years older, marrying the mistress each time the wife caught on and finding another mistress.
Perhaps Mother's early experience had some causal relationship with mine, and perhaps I accepted the power inequity because of her life-long domineering. Certainly my life was altered in many very negative ways. If he moved on from the 15 yo to the 25 yo, is he regressed or power-hungry? Or is it the same thing? Certainly he is 'not in the domain of psychiatry' not being in pain or desiring change, but I have been in care ever since.
Sorry to dump personal stuff, but the posters raise some very good questions. I would also like to see a post on what the mental health industry is good for.
July 26, 2008 5:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Dear CMK,
i'm sorry to hear that you have been molested, but i would like to point out that this could have happened to you at any age.
I live in a country where the AOC is 14, that means that it is ok for an adult to have sex with a >=14y/o.
This is not seen as an abuse "per se" by anyone (beside hate-centric persons) and in most cases it is not. The difference between abuse and having a normal and satisfying affective and sexual relation with someone is not the age, not is the age difference between the two but instead is the will of the two involved persons. As you said you did NOT want to have sex with this person, and that's what made it an abuse exactly as forcing someone to have sex with you makes it an abuse, no matter the age you have.
I am sorry to hear that you have been used like this, it is sad, but some people are cruel and care only for themselves, but if you met a person who did care for you the things would have been completely different first of all because this person would have respected your will.
November 17, 2008 12:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This is another erroneous article that attempts to dissect the motivations of pedophilia while not understanding a fact about it that is blatantly obvious if you interact with a real pedophile, exclusive or not: It's not all about the sex. It also makes the fallacious assumption that non-exclusive pedophiles are somehow less legitimate than their counterparts. In actuality, people, even those bound by a paraphilia, are individuals. They all have individual emphases they place on sexuality versus emotion in relationships, regardless of whether they are "regressed" or "fixated" (foolish terms more accurately represented by exclusive and non-exclusive).
In fact, this article doesn't even primarily talk about pedophilia. It talks about ephebophilia more than anything, the attraction to pubescent minors. Liking Brittney Spears when she was younger does not make you a pedophile, it makes you an ephebophile. Anybody who was truly in the fields of psychological study would know this distinction, as the motivations behind the two are entirely distinct.
Nepiophilia - Attraction to toddlers and infants (generally 0-4)
Pedophilia - Attraction to prepubescent minors (generally ages of 4-10)
Ephebophilia - Attraction to pubescent minors (from puberty until age of consent, 18 generally the standard)
If this basic distinction isn't known to the author, then they clearly haven't researched into the subject as fully as they had hoped. As for most pedophiles not being attracted to kids, that's garbage. The very definition of pedophilia is being sexually attracted to kids. A romantic element is also very possible and very prevalent, once again blatantly obvious if you visit actual pedophile congregational forums such as annabelleigh.net. Pedophilia does not imply that a person has acted on their urges though.
As a non-exclusive pedophile, your analysis of them is completely wrong. When I find a 13 year old girl attractive, I find her attractive as she is. I don't want her to be an NFL cheerleader, although in certain instances I also find them attractive. I find her perfectly sexy, beautiful, and cute as she is. And when I'm attracted to an 8 year old, I don't want them to be a 13 year old. I'm not substituting my true fantasies for whatever I can find; I legitimately find differing types of beauty in each age group and can appreciate them individually.
So, to the author, before you make a "profile" of a pedophile, ephebophile, nepiophile, or whatever you see fit (though let me advise you that no such thing exists with any more veracity than the profile of a homosexual or a heterosexual), I advise you to truly educate yourself on the basic terminology of your field of study and not be swayed yourself (as you so ironically complained about) by the common meanings of words.
I admire your attempt at objectively studying our "illness", but if you truly wish to be more than a charlatan adding to the already immense amount of misinfomation circulating about minor-attracted people then you will need to look at things from a different perspective. Quit being apologetic to biased science and the misguided masses.
As for the study you've linked, I would fault it on the following counts:
1. Science is not immune from the subjective leanings of its conductors and certainly of society at large. Only a century or so ago we had scientists telling us that "negroes" had smaller brain masses (and it should be noted that brain mass does not necessarily correlate to intelligence, as biologists frequently observe in very cognitively endowed animals, with larger brains than humans, who still can't use simple tools). Consider that Rind et al., one of the few studies to produce the relatively neutral result that minor/adult sexuality, if the child consents (or believes they have based on your viewpoint), is not overly harmful (though do not think that I am praising the study for its objectivity as it has similar flaws to most studies on the effects of minor/adult sexuality) was censured by Congress. I do not recall in recent times any other study that was similarly criticized by a government body. Surely that exemplifies the type of climate a scientist, even if they are striving to be objective, has to deal with. Bruce Rind, since his study, has been largely ostracized from the scientifc community.
2. What is the source of the so-called "pedophile" group in comparison to the other group? I imagine that the "pedophile" group was taken from the sex offenders' registry or some other way that would assure that those involved are criminals (not that I am saying it was their intent, it's highly possible that it was merely a matter of convenience) whereas the control group would consist of a random selection of people. It would be noted then that in general criminals possibly would be more likely to have this defect as opposed to non-criminals and not just specifically minor attracted people.
3. The deduction made from the evidence is a cum hoc fallacy regardless of its truth. Just because lesser brain mass (and possibly lower intelligence, though the former does not imply the latter) is correlated with minor attracted people does not mean that one causes the other, meaning that it doesn't prove that being minor attracted causes low intelligence nor that low intelligence causes minor attracted paraphilias. As you go from a city to a small town, you will find more churches. You will also find more crime. Does this mean that more churches cause more crime? Will tearing down some churches in Detroit make the crime rate go down? Of course not. It's a correlation, but not a causation.
4. The size of the sample is fairly low. Only 18 people is not a very good representation of a group which, by your own admission, is extremely large. And 24 people is not a very good representation of a group which is even larger. It also makes no indication as to the relative diversity of the sample (excepting sexual orentiation, which to me doesn't seem as relevant to the results as socioeconomic status, geographic area, and other more sociologically pertinent descriptions).
To conclude, there is no such thing as a "pedophile" as we have come to know them, just as the deviant, Godless, and flamboyant homosexual and the ape-like black man who can't be trusted around white women are myths. They are individuals, their only loose bond being an attraction they share. There are no men hiding in your bushes or waiting with candy in a van. Not all pedophiles are overweight or have odd mustaches. Some of them are losers; some of them are very popular. Some are rich and some poor. Some are young and some are old. Some are ugly; some are handsome. Some of them hate themselves for their attractions and some have come to terms with it. Some think minor/adult sex is okay; some don't. In actuality, you probably already know a minor attracted person. They're probably normal, ethically sound individuals who are safe to leave your kids around. They could be a crazed murderous lunatic, but they'd be that way whether they were attracted to minors or not. In any division of people there are bad people, good people, and more often those in the middle. Minor attracted people are no exception.
You may be asking why you've never heard of these good pedophiles or even the in the middle ones. They don't want you to. Who are "they"? The media that entertains you with stories of pedophiles and Satanic child rapists and other such fantasies is them. NBC, who gets astounding ratings with their To Catch A Predator show is them. The psychiatric industry who is tasked with fixing a problem that was largely invented (the age of consent was 10 as late as the 1800s, and even before the 1980s we rarely hear a peep about pedophiles) and makes billions of dollars off of it is them. They don't care about your children; they just want to sell you their safety for a hefty price. They want to be "tough on pedos" so they can get your vote and maintain their lavish offices.
I think it's time we stop letting them prey on our emotions that we have for our children. Instead we need to come to realize that love is boundless and can exist in any form, as can lust and rape and opportunistic sex but that does not mean that in any love, whether it be heterosexual, homosexual, pedophile, zoophile, necrophile, polygamist, incestual, or anywhere in between only one type will exist. Love is a cruel beast who will target anyone and infatuate them with anyone and that as we are all common slaves of this phenomenon we should let no human have their infatuations tested, vilified, quantified, ridiculed, or examined by another who has no truly experienced the love they wish to judge. Live and let live and leave matters of the human heart to the hearts that are afflicted. No amount of "science", rhetoric, or insultation shall convince myself or others of the impurity of their feelings, and this is why love shall conquer over hatred. You can cling to hatred as long as it's an easy road to follow instead of accompanying love in the bumpiest and most dangerous of paths it will tread, it's your choice, but you will always be on the losing side.
November 17, 2008 8:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So many anonymous posters. Thanks for an interesting, albeit somewhat inaccurate, article.
A few things:
1. If they are not attracted to prepubescent children, they are not pedophiles. Being attracted to a developing or developed individual gives no indication they are attracted to anything else.
2. Having a sexual encounter with, or sexually 'deviant' thoughts about, a minor of any age does not make a pedophile. Most people have homoerotic thoughts, at the very least, at some point in time of their lives; some have them frequently. Many never consider acting these thoughts out and most never carry through. Are all of them homosexual? You would be astounded at how many people I've spoken with who are 'into' rape fantasies. Does this make them rapists/victims of rape in the past or future? A homosexual is a homosexual, and a rapist is a rapist. Only a pedophile is a pedophile.
3. Without even reading the text of the 'study' you presented regarding brain size, I can easily surmise convicted sex offenders were used for the fixated group. Heh, I gotta tell ya, most convicted ANYthing aren't terribly well endowed with mental function across a spectrum of categories, although sometimes they excel in a particular area. I'm not saying there aren't some wicked smart criminals out there, they happen. I merely suggest that using convicts as a base to explore mental capacities of those saddled with a particular sexual orientation is a bit like using a small group of lifetime secluded nuns to describe the sexual practices of Women. Silly, no?
4. Visit http://b4uact.org for a new perspective. Anyone wishing to tackle mental health and sexuality of pedophiles should be taking a gander at this site.
5. Go easy on the sauce, it won't really help.
Peace, Love and ROUND 2!!!
^Silver Wolfe~~
November 17, 2008 11:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Being a convicted child moleste, "Silver Wolfe" might not be the best source of information about pedophilia.
November 17, 2008 11:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
http://b4uact.org is owned by Michael Melsheimer, another convicted child molester.
November 18, 2008 4:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Rawr - that's why most decent people ever hate Anonymous. Everything Anonymous does has ever been ad hominems. I don't agree that we should consider "wanted 25 and settled for 15" a P in any sense except both belong in the same illegality realm in our books, but otherwise nice article.
November 18, 2008 10:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The original article appears to be an honest attempt at the subject, but I'm afraid the author doesn't quite understand the material - and even then, the material itself is greatly flawed.
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and all types of people can be pedophiles - highly ethical or unethical, flexible or rigid, selfless or selfish, intelligent or stupid. Studies done on the stupid ones who are most likely to get caught say nothing about any class except stupid people. This is especially true since numerous studies have found that those most likely to break the law are not actually pedophiles at all - that is, they are not primarily attracted to children.
CMK made some good points: Their abuse happened because of other ethical and/or intellectual failings on the parts of others, without regard to their sexual orientation. First, please note that attraction to a 15yo is not pedophilia. That is normal. But the problems did not arise from the ages of the participants, but from uncaring and/or domineering behavior, and from cluelessness. Attacks on pedophilia do nothing to prevent such problems, and may exacerbate them by diverting attention from problem areas.
As for a psychiatrist being involved in such abuse - well, I am not surprised. It is an open secret that most psychologists and psychiatrists are troubled individuals, often drawn to the field by a desire to understand themselves. Beyond this, psychologists are - on average - not the cream of the crop, and even psychiatrists are generally drawn from the less-gifted M.D.s. Take their conclusions with a grain of salt - the medical understanding of the brain today is only slightly beyond where the medical understanding of the rest of the body was 250 years ago, when every ailment seemed to require blood-letting.
For persons not suffering from severe mental disorders, I would suggest talking to friends rather than psychotherapists. You will probably get better results, and even if you offer to pay for their dinner in order to get them to come, it will be much cheaper. Numerous studies have proven that talk therapy is ineffective, and most of the medical treatments have severe side-effects and should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Before therapy was so prevalent, there was a much more effective method of dealing with problems, which can be summed up in three words: "Get over it." It works in most cases.
Oh, yeah = moderate physical activity is also conducive to mental health.
I mention all this, because a lot of what you see psychologists doing is not about healing anyone, but primarily about paying the bills. They need you to buy their product so they can buy the products they want. If that means peddling some bullshit that makes virtually everyone a "victim" in need of their product, that is what they will do.
November 19, 2008 2:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>>>>Being a convicted child moleste, "Silver Wolfe" might not be the best source of information about pedophilia.
Thank you very much for showing the point that studies done on convicted offenders don't shed light on the universe of paedophiles. Nobody did it with the beautiful succintness and parsimony you did.
November 19, 2008 3:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"Pedophilia is a sexual orientation"
Pedophilia is *not* a sexual orientation.
November 19, 2008 3:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"Nobody did it with the beautiful succintness and parsimony you did."
So you agree or disagree with SW's assertion that the 5 year old little girl he raped was "asking for it"?
November 20, 2008 12:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
wikisposure.com/Silver_Wolfe explains that the little girl he raped was really asking for it.
"I've been adjudicated against for my involvement with a young girl who I feel in love with many years ago. She was about 5 years of age and our relationship flowered over time. It was gentle and very much in her control. Some of you know much of the details about this. We were together nearly 2 years."
November 20, 2008 1:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
obviously anyone who is obsessed with sexualizing kids has an issue or two,but i dont think psychology or psychiatry is doing very well with this issue. for starters,docs and police profilers want to fit all offenders into neat little boxes. there may be certain tendencies that come up frequently,but that doesnt mean they all think the same or do things for the same reasons. for example: fixated and regressed leaves out alot. what about the guy who likes both women and young females? "if shes cute and has a hole,thats all i need." i knew someone like that. the only reason why he had sex with more women than girls is because women who were ready for sex were easier to come by than "willing" minors. he really had no preference by age,as long as she was cute and easy. is he still a pedophile? does just being willing to have sex with a minor for any reason make him a true pedophile? i dont think you can treat pedophilia or any other mental condition as long as we get stuck in a rut and refuse to examine all the evidence and possibilities. calling a dog a "cat" will not make it meow,even if you convince the onlookers that it is a weird looking cat.
and regarding the childrens fashion issue...
its always easiest to pass the buck,but parents know offenders are out there. since parents buy the clothes,its their fault if the kid looks too "sexy." i dont care if its "in" or "cute" or "harmless," learn to tell your kids NO. if the parents will stop buying these provocative clothes,the producers will stop making them. allow your kid to be a kid,and stop dressing them like little adults. when i see a 10yr old wearing high heels,leather,fishnet,and makeup,i want to bitch-slap the mother.
dont be so good at providing temptation,then act indignant when some perv eyes your daughter. its called hypocracy,and the world is rife with it,especially in the West...
November 20, 2008 8:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Ah, the sort of garnished divisiveness I'd expect to see surrounding this topic.
Where's the registry in my state for murderers? Why don't I "have a right to know" who might KILL our children?
Why is child sexual abuse the only crime that can't be caught on camera? Why is it perfectly okay to possess a picture or video of that same child being decapitated or starved to death?
Most importantly, why is no one asking these questions?
I'm just saying, there's a lot of worse stuff out there which we pay almost no attention to, and it makes no sense to me how we as a society can be so much more fixated on child abuse than anything else. What's worse is that our law has sympathized with the very same irrational fear-mongering that drives our society. I'm sorry but people desperately need to get their values in order.
Comments