Sex Offenses and Sex Offender Lists

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I was talking to my neighbor about this and we both have mixed thoughts and I thought I would poll people here about it. On the one hand, I fucking hate child molesters and rapists, that's just how I feel. I can see the benefit in having such a system for public safety I guess. But then, it was brought to my attention that you can also get on this lists for things like, indecent exposure or like say, a 15 yr old has 100% consensual sex with her 16-17 yr old long-term bf, parents get pissed and he gets charged with rape or rape of a minor if he's 18 or something, which is pretty shitty IMO. It seems kind of problematic in this respect. What do you guys think?

[Slavic]

it was brought to my attention that you can also get on this lists for things like, indecent exposure or like say, a 15 yr old has 100% consensual sex with her 16-17 yr old long-term bf, parents get pissed and he gets charged with rape or rape of a minor if he's 18 or something, which is pretty shitty IMO. It seems kind of problematic in this respect. What do you guys think?

Well yea, that is pretty much the down side to the system but that is because there needs to be a set age limit with regards to consensual sex. What this age limit is, I do not know, possibly it should be lowered.

The point being, there is a certain level of development that needs to occur to entrust a child with the responsibility and risks of sex, primarily to protect themselves from harming themselves and from others that may seek to harm them. This development is variable so an arbitrary limit must be picked for the sake of simplicity and execution.

The other aspects of the sex offender list is fine. Predators should be publicly outed for the safeguarding of society and to discourage said behavior.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

I don't necessarily agree with that. Public outing of these people often leads to them being ostracized. Their acts are despicable of course but the last thing you want to do is isolate them. These people are disturbed, they need our help.

[The Feral Underclass]

I was talking to my neighbor about this and we both have mixed thoughts and I thought I would poll people here about it. On the one hand, I fucking hate child molesters and rapists, that's just how I feel. I can see the benefit in having such a system for public safety I guess. But then, it was brought to my attention that you can also get on this lists for things like, indecent exposure or like say, a 15 yr old has 100% consensual sex with her 16-17 yr old long-term bf, parents get pissed and he gets charged with rape or rape of a minor if he's 18 or something, which is pretty shitty IMO. It seems kind of problematic in this respect. What do you guys think?

Presumably you hate all molesters and rapist, not just child ones?

You can also go on the sex offenders' register for having sex with a bicycle. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567410/Man-who-had-sex-with-bike-in-court.html) (He was in the privacy of a hotel room and was walked in on by two cleaners).

It's difficult to judge these things under the present system. Any crime that is sexual in nature will mean you go on the register. I think, then, the question is not so much the register itself, but what you consider a sexual crime. That's probably be issue that needs addressing.

In terms of post-revolutionary social management, I would hope that having sex with a bicycle wouldn't be something communities concerned themselves with, but for more serious things such as rape, it may be in the community's interest to maintain a list of people.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I have mixed feelings about such lists. On one hand, there are people out there who do present a danger, on the other hand, some people are on the lists who don't present a danger.

[Decolonize The Left]

It seems as though it is a matter of prioritizing the safety of a community (i.e. having the lists) over prioritizing the possibility of poor judgement regarding administration of the lists (i.e. putting someone on there for fucking a bicycle).

[Zealot]

Sorry but I don't have any sympathy for sex offenders. Apart from the rare exceptions that have been cited, these people deserve to be outed and shamed.


I don't necessarily agree with that. Public outing of these people often leads to them being ostracized.

Good.


Their acts are despicable of course but the last thing you want to do is isolate them. These people are disturbed, they need our help.

:crying: poor rapists

[Ocean Seal]

Sorry but I don't have any sympathy for sex offenders. Apart from the rare exceptions that have been cited, these people deserve to be outed and shamed.



Good.



:crying: poor rapists

Our justice system (post-capitalism) shouldn't rely on retribution or an emotional gut reaction to a crime. Part of the reason that I hate these lists is the reaction that they elicit from people. I'm not accusing you of being one of these people, but its really pretty disgusting to talk to people who are more concerned with punishing pedophiles (because what they did was icky) than with helping the children and making sure that we build a society where children are safe. Especially when you hear about them being happy that there is rape in prison so that criminals can suffer even more.

As fucked up as what they do is, we have to address underlying issues, and stop reasoning with our gut and start doing it with our brains. Rather than ostracise pedophiles/rapists or ask for them to get raped themselves, we should encourage people with these sentiments to go for treatment (before they commit an act) and understand their thoughts, and if we genuinely believe that they are a danger to children then they shouldn't be released into the general population in the first place. I think that's a better system than the whole lets get people riled up in a conservative "we need tougher prisons" "don't rent to these people" frenzy.

Also part of the logic to this is pretty heterosexist/sexist. Usually the community is not concerned when an adult woman has sex with an underaged male even in instances where the male is forced to pay child support despite being underaged. Whereas when a male 16-17 has sex with a 15 yo female it is often taken as a sex crime especially when the parents deploy the anti-feminist rhetoric that the boy took the girls innocence. This often also is enhanced with racist rhetoric (as in it happens more when the couple is interracial).

Tl;dr: We need to address the problem rather than the criminals themselves. If pedophiles/rapists are bound to repeat again then the sentences should force them to live in isolation and that should be the solution. Also we should condemn the crime, so that people who have still not committed an offence have an opportunity to get help rather than remain the shadows and eventually commit the crime.

[Zealot]

Our justice system (post-capitalism) shouldn't rely on retribution or an emotional gut reaction to a crime. Part of the reason that I hate these lists is the reaction that they elicit from people. I'm not accusing you of being one of these people, but its really pretty disgusting to talk to people who are more concerned with punishing pedophiles (because what they did was icky) than with helping the children and making sure that we build a society where children are safe. Especially when you hear about them being happy that there is rape in prison so that criminals can suffer even more.

As fucked up as what they do is, we have to address underlying issues, and stop reasoning with our gut and start doing it with our brains. Rather than ostracise pedophiles/rapists or ask for them to get raped themselves, we should encourage people with these sentiments to go for treatment (before they commit an act) and understand their thoughts, and if we genuinely believe that they are a danger to children then they shouldn't be released into the general population in the first place. I think that's a better system than the whole lets get people riled up in a conservative "we need tougher prisons" "don't rent to these people" frenzy.

Also part of the logic to this is pretty heterosexist/sexist. Usually the community is not concerned when an adult woman has sex with an underaged male even in instances where the male is forced to pay child support despite being underaged. Whereas when a male 16-17 has sex with a 15 yo female it is often taken as a sex crime especially when the parents deploy the anti-feminist rhetoric that the boy took the girls innocence. This often also is enhanced with racist rhetoric (as in it happens more when the couple is interracial).

Tl;dr: We need to address the problem rather than the criminals themselves. If pedophiles/rapists are bound to repeat again then the sentences should force them to live in isolation and that should be the solution. Also we should condemn the crime, so that people who have still not committed an offence have an opportunity to get help rather than remain the shadows and eventually commit the crime.

You're right, people with these sentiments should be encouraged to go for treatment before they commit the act. OPs question was about lists for actual sex offenders, which I'm entirely in favour of. But I'm pretty sure that pedophiles and the like cannot ever be treated. It's a natural condition like being gay, except being gay doesn't hurt anyone or lead to the rape of children. And those types need to be quarantined on their own island. Exactly three females in my family have been raped, two of whom were aged 9-10 at the time, and if I came across them on the street the last thing I'm going to be thinking about is how to help their sorry ass or have pity on them. If they're being raped in prison I couldn't care less.

[Slavic]

Tl;dr: We need to address the problem rather than the criminals themselves. If pedophiles/rapists are bound to repeat again then the sentences should force them to live in isolation and that should be the solution. Also we should condemn the crime, so that people who have still not committed an offence have an opportunity to get help rather than remain the shadows and eventually commit the crime.

Im confused as to how you came to this conclusion with regards to your earlier statement. Your synopsis in fact throws full support to a sex offender list because the list:

1. Isolates sex offenders
2. Serves as a condemnation of the crime

[The Feral Underclass]

But I'm pretty sure that pedophiles and the like cannot ever be treated.

Are you a mental health specialist? What qualifications do you have for this statement? Because aside from it being wrong, it's also a view that perpetuates vigilante justice and prohibition on sensible discourse.


It's a natural condition like being gay, except being gay doesn't hurt anyone or lead to the rape of children.

Are you saying that homosexuality is a mental disorder or are you just displaying your ignorance and lack of insight into pedophilia?

Pedophilia is not a sexuality, it is a mental disorder and like all mental disorders it is treatable.

When we have developed a collective intellect sophisticated enough to dispense with this fire and brimstone bullshit, we might be able to make some progress.


If they're being raped in prison I couldn't care less.

So you're an advocate of rape?

Should those rapists be put on the sex offenders' register and ostracised? Or are you saying rape is morally reprehensible except when it's against a rapist?

What kind if Toy Town morality is that? Are you a Christian? Because your view is just about as coherent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

Should those rapists be put on the sex offenders' register and ostracised? Or are you saying rape is morally reprehensible except when it's against a rapist?

What kind if Micky Mouse morality is that? Are you a Christian? Because your view is just about as coherent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd rather that they rape each other in prison than having them on the loose in society raping innocent people.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd rather that they rape each other in prison than having them on the loose in society raping innocent people.


You're an idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

Are you a mental health specialist? What qualifications do you have for this statement?

None.


Because aside from it being wrong, it's also a view that perpetuates vigilante justice and prohibition on sensible discourse.

I'm not trying to prohibit discourse.


Are you saying that homosexuality is a mental disorder or are you just displaying your ignorance and lack of insight into pedophilia?

:laugh: thanks for the laugh. Yeah, I'm sorry that I don't have a qualification in pedophilia and haven't taken the time you obviously have to get ground-breaking insights into pedophilia.


Pedophilia is not a sexuality, it is a mental disorder and like all mental disorders it is treatable.

I have to disagree. I don't think that attraction to children can be cured.


You're an idiot.

:crying:

[The Feral Underclass]

None.

Then don't make pronouncements about what it is and isn't.




I'm not trying to prohibit discourse.

Whether you're trying to or not is irrelevant. Framing discussions about paedophila that makes false assumptions, advocates draconian and retributive punishment without even understanding what it is you're talking about does prohibit discourse. How can we have a sensible and progressive discussion on solutions if these positions you advocate are the starting point for that discussion?




:laugh: thanks for the laugh. Yeah, I'm sorry that I don't have a qualification in pedophilia and haven't taken the time you obviously have to get ground-breaking insights into pedophilia.

You didn't answer my question...




I have to disagree. I don't think that attraction to children can be cured.

Cure and treatment are two different things. Schizophrenia (another mental disorder) can't be cured, but it can be treated, just as paedophilia can be. A position, I might add, that is supported by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organisation.




:crying:


Your intervention in this thread has so far consisted of comparing homosexuality with paedophilia, advocating rape as an appropriate incidental punitive measure and implying that a solution to rape would be putting all the rapists in one place so they can all just rape each other...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

After some digging, I found some pretty incriminating history on "The Feral Underclass" and it all makes sense now. On their profile he/she has a link to a film they made about a man struggling with his attraction to children. It includes a hilarious scene where he tugs one out in the garden shed after seeing a boy on the bus. The same boy randomly shows up at his house later to share a packet of chips and some alcohol. At the end of the film I think we're meant to sympathise with him for being rejected by the boy.

The Feral Underclass has also written an article for a magazine entitled "Pedophiles Anonymous" in which he questions age of consent laws and even admits that some types of pedophilia may have a biological basis. To be clear, he does take the time to insert a few sentences condemning sexual offenses. My favourite part is the introduction:


"How many of us have had sexual fantasies about children or “youths”? Perhaps it was an ephemeral flash in the recesses of masturbation? Perhaps you’ve even entertained elaborate narratives or role played with partners? How many of us are truly prepared to admit that, at some point, as transient or as complex as it may have been, we have considered what it was like to have sex with a child?"

It kinda reminds me of those hilarious moments where people are like "wait, doesn't everyone do this?"

Some further digging on Google turned up some more incriminating evidence of his views. Here he is defending Roman Polanski and NAMBLA: http://i.imgur.com/rRL2q.png

And at it again, calling the outrage of the statutory rape of 13-year-olds "social conservatism": http://i.imgur.com/witbA.png

With this long history of pedophilia apologism and rape sympathising I get the feeling that The Feral Underclass is going through some mental anguish with his own sexual urges. If you are, then I can empathise. But if you commit a crime don't expect me to care about you getting raped in prison.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm afraid this old news.

Also, I link to that article in my RevLeft blog. I'm not ashamed of the article and I stand by many of the points I raised, especially the premise that non-criminal paedophiles require assistance, and those who have committed crimes require restorative justice. That said, since the article is seven years old, I can safely say I do not maintain that the way I presented my argument was particularly appropriate and admit it was pointedly an attempt at provocation.

I was asked to write that article to accompany the release of my widely praised and distributed short film, funded by The UK Film Council and exhibited at various national and international festivals as well as on the BBC.

But I'll reiterate: I have nothing to be ashamed of or to hide and I stand by everything I have said in this thread. Which, incidentally, hasn't been refuted simply because you have decided to drag up some spurious, misquoted, inaccurate and defamatory nonsense.

My arguments are supported by medical fact as well as two of the world's biggest health organisations. If you want to imply that any one who shares those views is essentially a paedophile, then that would have to include those in APA and the WHO.

Like I said. You're an idiot.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'll address the two posts you have magically found (i.e. been provided with).




Here he is defending Roman Polanski and NAMBLA: http://i.imgur.com/rRL2q.png



If stating two facts is classed as a defence, then that's fine, I guess that's what I'm doing. Since Roman Polanski is not a paedophile (at least based on what we know) and since NAMBLA do not promote age of consent for pre-pubescent children (at least when I made that post four years ago), I don't really understand what there is to object to.




And at it again, calling the outrage of the statutory rape of 13-year-olds "social conservatism": http://i.imgur.com/witbA.png



If you actually read what you posted, I pointed out, rightly, that culturally ages of consent are arbitrary and therefore restricting the age of consent to 16 or 18 could be considered social conservatism in places where it is 13. Are you saying that's not possible?



What then of the age of consent being 16 in the UK and 21 in Saudia Arabia? Is the age of consent in Saudi Arabia not an example of social conservatism? I'm not making a case for cultural relativism here, I am simply proposing a more broader appraisal (which includes, shockingly, the facts)of these issues, rather than your emotions.



What you are doing here is actually drawing a conclusion from a premise that doesn't exist. I didn't call anything social conservatism, I merely implied that the age of consent laws and moralism around them are arbitrary and based upon different views and culture


A position I stand by, since it is demonstrably true.




With this long history of pedophilia apologism and rape sympathising I get the feeling that The Feral Underclass is going through some mental anguish with his own sexual urges. If you are, then I can empathise. But if you commit a crime don't expect me to care about you getting raped in prison.



Accusing me of being a paedophile simply because I refuse to engage in the kind of vigilante, fire-and-brimstone solutions that you promote is intellectual dishonesty and spite. Noting more.



If your go-to position for someone who believes that paedophiles should be given help, support and restorative justice, rather than lynchings is a paedophile, then this demonstrates very clearly that you are nothing more than an ignorant fool.



You are perfectly within your right to disagree with my views, but to make defamatory accusations because you lack the intellect to engage with the ideas shows only your complete lack of integrity.

[Lord Testicles]

A dishonest Leninist whose thinking hails from the depths of the last century? Who'd have thunk it!?

[The Feral Underclass]

We're developing the short film in to a mini-tv drama, so all you losers are going to have something even more scandalous to gossip about with your internet nerd friends while you sit in your bedrooms wasting your lives and I'm achieving critical acclaim and royalties.

Please make sure you escalate this stuff better next time, the exposure as a persecuted artist will be great for my career.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Quail]

This is a verbal warning to Zealot to refrain from personal attacks.

[Zealot]

Personal attacks, wtf? The Feral Underclass has clearly made it his life mission to promote sympathy for sexual offenders and wannabe sexual offenders, redefine their crimes, and has made actual personal attacks on me throughout this thread. Yet I'm the one that gets a verbal warning. This must be the prohibition of discourse that he was warning about.

If this is regarding my statement speculating about TFU's sexual tendencies, I'm just calling a spade a spade. Because if I'm right, I sincerely hope that he gets the medical treatment he advocates for others.

Regarding the cultural differences on the age of consent, I am well aware of that. But morals evolve just like everything else and it's a pretty poor argument to justify the idea that "the age of consent laws and moralism around them are arbitrary". This is reminiscent of Nazis who claim they aren't racist or genocidal despite their ridiculous arguments that point to the contrary because behind the bullshit you just find a plain old fascist.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'd rather that they rape each other in prison than having them on the loose in society raping innocent people.
Then you're pro-rape, and that's a big problem.

[The Feral Underclass]

Personal attacks, wtf? The Feral Underclass has clearly made it his life mission to promote sympathy for sexual offenders and wannabe sexual offenders, redefine their crimes

I don't want people to sympathise with sex offenders, I want people to empathise with them. There is a big difference. I don't want people to share an understanding, I want people to be aware of how awful being a paedophile must be and how we require more compassionate solutions to what is a medical disorder if we want to prevent it. Punitive justice doesn't work

Also, your assertion that I want to "redefine" their crimes is simply a blatant lie. What I want to redefine is how we deal with these crimes.

As the victim of extended child grooming by several paedophiles and of rape, I think it is my prerogative to make this issue a central theme in my creative work and academic study. When asked to produce articles that discuss that work then I think that is appropriate, necessary and completely in keeping with standard film marketing practices. It does not qualify as a "life's work" -- especially since I'm only 32.


If this is regarding my statement speculating about TFU's sexual tendencies, I'm just calling a spade a spade. Because if I'm right, I sincerely hope that he gets the medical treatment he advocates for others.

I assume your verbal warning is more to do with the fact you're attacking a child rape victim for being a paedophile based solely on suggesting there is a broader debate about these issues other than you ignorant reactive emotions and bigotry.

Since I know both Skinz and Quail outside of RevLeft as friends both personally and politically, I assume they feel particularly annoyed by you.


Regarding the cultural differences on the age of consent, I am well aware of that. But morals evolve just like everything else and it's a pretty poor argument to justify the idea that "the age of consent laws and moralism around them are arbitrary". This is reminiscent of Nazis who claim they aren't racist or genocidal despite their ridiculous arguments that point to the contrary because behind the bullshit you just find a plain old fascist.

I don't understand what the point of contention is? Are you saying that international age of consent laws and the morals around them are not arbitrary? Specifically, heteronormative arbitrariness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A further argument for the heteronormative arbitrariness of international age of consent laws can be seen through the history of homosexuality in the UK. Until 2001, straight people could have sex at 16 but gay people could only have sex when they were 18. An example of shifting moral and cultural perceptions.

Having said that, I think it is clear that whatever other countries' age-of-consent laws are, it seems that the current age of consent in the UK, of 16, is pretty well established and better than any alternatives (to move it up, down, or to abolish), that may seem like good alternatives for specific instances (i.e. the much-quoted example of 17-year olds having sex with 15-year olds), but would probably just cause more problems for the majority of cases, not to mention probably not being a reflection of moral and cultural attitudes in the UK currently.

[The Feral Underclass]

Age of consent laws are also arbitrary because they assume a universal emotional/intellectual capability for specific ages, which is obviously ridiculous. Some 16 year olds are very capable of emotional and intellectual decisions about sex, while some 16 year olds just clearly are not capable of those decisions.

It would be interesting to work out how we can create a universal cut off point that is not arbitrary and takes into consideration factors not determined by moralism, heternormativity and rank-emotionalism. I think establishing a society that does not automate children, stifle independent thinking, commercialises sex while making it appear beyond the realms of comprehension and decency, stigmatise women's sexuality, penalises sexual experimentation and prohibits the broadening of sexual education to involve things like consent and critical judgement, it is not going to be possible.

[Smash Monogamy]

If they're being raped in prison I couldn't care less.

Agreed. Rape is too often portrayed as a terrible evil that needs to be ended in society. On the contrary, rape is neutral and can be used as a tool for good or for evil. Using it against innocents is bad, but using it against the bad guys is justice! :rolleyes:

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

We're developing the short film in to a mini-tv drama, so all you losers are going to have something even more scandalous to gossip about with your internet nerd friends while you sit in your bedrooms wasting your lives and I'm achieving critical acclaim and royalties.

Please make sure you escalate this stuff better next time, the exposure as a persecuted artist will be great for my career.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you don't make your 30,000th post from the drivers seat of your new Ferrari, this will be the quote thats dragged out to shame you in the future, rather than the one about masturbation.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd need to learn how to drive first :(

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

]
Age of consent laws are also arbitrary because they assume a universal emotional/intellectual capability for specific ages, which is obviously ridiculous. Some 16 year olds are very capable of emotional and intellectual decisions about sex, while some 16 year olds just clearly are not capable of those decisions.

Indeed, and the bit I emboldened is I think one of the problems that comes about as a result of arbitrary age-of-consent laws. However, whilst recognising that there is no universal correct age-of-consent, I do think that a legal age-of-consent (say as it is in the UK) does do an adequate job of reflecting the current moral and cultural ideas that pervade British society at the moment. I'd say it's effective and acceptable the overwhelming majority of the time, tbh.

It would be interesting to work out how we can create a universal cut off point that is not arbitrary and takes into consideration factors not determined by moralism, heternormativity and rank-emotionalism.


I think establishing a society that does not automate children, stifle independent thinking, commercialises sex while making it appear beyond the realms of comprehension and decency, stigmatise women's sexuality, penalises sexual experimentation and prohibits the broadening of sexual education to involve things like consent and critical judgement, it is not going to be possible.

This all comes back to education, and why i'm a teacher - in effect to attempt to be part of an intellectual movement that encourages critical thinking, attempts to give students a safe space for dialogue and establish their social confidence.

I think, though, that the age-of-consent debate is just not one that is massively necessary to have. I am struggling to think who is caused an injustice by the current laws as they stand - as i've said, there are the odd cases of 17 year olds being charged with rape for having sex with their 15 year old girlfriends, but overall whilst we should understand that age-of-consent laws are arbitrary, I think that we can also understand that in the British context they do seem to largely be a reflection of the wishes of most people and serve a positive purpose.

[Zealot]

Then you're pro-rape, and that's a big problem.


Agreed. Rape is too often portrayed as a terrible evil that needs to be ended in society. On the contrary, rape is neutral and can be used as a tool for good or for evil. Using it against innocents is bad, but using it against the bad guys is justice! :rolleyes:

lol pro-rape. All I'm saying is that I ain't losing any sleep over pedophiles getting raped in prison because I'm not as fond of them as some of the people in this thread.

[Loony Le Fist]

Sorry but I don't have any sympathy for sex offenders. Apart from the rare exceptions that have been cited, these people deserve to be outed and shamed.


Do you mind defining sex offender so we may find specific points of agreement?

[Hagalaz]

I don't necessarily agree with that. Public outing of these people often leads to them being ostracized. Their acts are despicable of course but the last thing you want to do is isolate them. These people are disturbed, they need our help.

With respect you are being naive.
The vast majority of convicted sex offenders re offend upon release.
Even if they've been given all kinds of help.

[motion denied]

With respect you are being naive.
The vast majority of convicted sex offenders re offend upon release.
Even if they've been given all kinds of help.

In my state 70% of robbers re-offend. 41% of them are minors.

Maybe we should lock them for life? Or another more drastic penalty?

[Hermes]

With respect you are being naive.
The vast majority of convicted sex offenders re offend upon release.
Even if they've been given all kinds of help.

Could you cite this?

I can remember an article about sex offenders having the lowest recidivism rate. I can't recall where I saw it, however.

[Slavic]

Cure and treatment are two different things. Schizophrenia (another mental disorder) can't be cured, but it can be treated, just as paedophilia can be. A position, I might add, that is supported by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organisation.

Your intervention in this thread has so far consisted of comparing homosexuality with paedophilia, advocating rape as an appropriate incidental punitive measure and implying that a solution to rape would be putting all the rapists in one place so they can all just rape each other...

Tell me, why does the sexual attraction for minors constitute a mental disorder while the sexual attraction for adults is a natural sexual orientation.

I am going to assume that you will agree that a persons sexual attraction isn't something that one can will away but is instead something that we are mostly born with.

Why would someone who is born attracted to men not be able to change their sexual orientations, while someone who is attracted to boys can after treatment?

Also your validation of your arguments from what the WHO and APA state about pedophilia is silly because literally only a few decades ago both these organization classified homosexuality as a mental disorder that can be treated.

[Lord Testicles]

I can remember an article about sex offenders having the lowest recidivism rate. I can't recall where I saw it, however.

This (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf) (page 8) seems to suggest that only murderers are less likely to be re-arrested.

[The Feral Underclass]

Tell me, why does the sexual attraction for minors constitute a mental disorder while the sexual attraction for adults is a natural sexual orientation.

Firstly, paedophilia isn't defined as sexual attraction to "minors," it is defined as a strong and persistent sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. There is a distinct difference, since in the US, for example, a 17 year old is technically a 'minor,' but is definitely not pre-pubescent. 'Minor' is a legalistic term that sets the parameters of legalistic adulthood, not a medical one that relates to sexual desire. Secondly, a mental disorder is a condition in which psychiatric or behavioural patterns cause suffering or an inability to function in ordinary life.

Paedophiles also share common characteristics, such as low IQ, low self-esteem, inabilities to self-conceptualise and empathise, and restricted interpersonal functions, i.e. they can't form standard relationships.


I am going to assume that you will agree that a persons sexual attraction isn't something that one can will away but is instead something that we are mostly born with.

Sexual orientation relates to attractions to specific biological genders. Paedophiles tend to be attracted to both male and female children and the desires relate to a specific age group, not a specific gender. It is a paraphilia, not an orientation, meaning it is a specific kind of sex that is appealing, not a specific gender.

Paedophiles develop their sexual orientations concurrently with their desires for sex with pre-pubescent children. Conflating the two is a gross misunderstanding of sexuality and an oversimplification of [the] disorder.


Why would someone who is born attracted to men not be able to change their sexual orientations, while someone who is attracted to boys can after treatment?

Because "boy" (just like "man") isn't a gender, it is a social construct categorised by age-range.


Also your validation of your arguments from what the WHO and APA state about pedophilia is silly because literally only a few decades ago both these organization classified homosexuality as a mental disorder that can be treated.

This argument presupposes the possibility of a conversation in which paedophilia can be normalised.

The classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder was based upon homophobic and heteronormative understandings of human sexual behaviour. Are you therefore arguing that paedophilia falls under that same category of stigmatisation?

Homosexuality isn't and never has been a mental disorder, because it does not fall under the diagnostic criteria for such -- it was simply made to do so for nefarious purposes. If you want to argue this is possible for paedophilia, then you have to entertain the notion that having strong and overwhelming desires to have sex with pre-pubescent children can not cause suffering or an inability to function in daily life, and is potentially a perfectly standard and normal way for humans to function.

[The Feral Underclass]

lol pro-rape. All I'm saying is that I ain't losing any sleep over pedophiles getting raped in prison because I'm not as fond of them as some of the people in this thread.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Luís Henrique]

lol pro-rape. All I'm saying is that I ain't losing any sleep over pedophiles getting raped in prison because I'm not as fond of them as some of the people in this thread.

Which, behold, is a pro-rape position.

Luís Henrique

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

We're developing the short film in to a mini-tv drama, so all you losers are going to have something even more scandalous to gossip about with your internet nerd friends while you sit in your bedrooms wasting your lives and I'm achieving critical acclaim and royalties.

Please make sure you escalate this stuff better next time, the exposure as a persecuted artist will be great for my career.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Little did you know, you're talking to a...

http://mlblogsbaseballsnatcher.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/superstar.jpg

[Hagalaz]

Could you cite this?

I can remember an article about sex offenders having the lowest recidivism rate. I can't recall where I saw it, however.

I worked many years in the prison system. Sex offenders have one of the highest re offense numbers in California. Check out the California State DoJ site if you don't want to believe me.

[Hagalaz]

In my state 70% of robbers re-offend. 41% of them are minors.

Maybe we should lock them for life? Or another more drastic penalty?

That would be a start.

[The Feral Underclass]

I worked many years in the prison system. Sex offenders have one of the highest re offense numbers in California. Check out the California State DoJ site if you don't want to believe me.


Because sex offences can't be resolved by locking people in prisons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hermes]

I worked many years in the prison system. Sex offenders have one of the highest re offense numbers in California. Check out the California State DoJ site if you don't want to believe me.

Could you cite a source? I checked out the site and couldn't find the statistic you're using.

Also, how do you respond to this?


This (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf) (page 8) seems to suggest that only murderers are less likely to be re-arrested.

[Anarchisteve]

That would be a start.

Do you really believe that locking thieves up for life is either productive or just?

Theft is merely a symptom of a dysfunctional society, one where many are born into poverty, educated to be a wage-slave and nothing more, and are left with a choice: work "legally" and sell a large portion of their life for a pittance, or turn to crime. Nobody who is given only those options should be punished (especially so severely) for choosing the "bad" one.

[blake 3:17]

Apologies for not having read every post in this thread. The suggestion of prison rape as justice for anyone is just insane.

The sex offender list here seems to function very poorly -- although it may have successes that go unheard of. The recent massive bugger up in Canada is to put everyone who shares the birthdate and gender of someone on the sex offenders list on extra watch when it comes for police checks for employment or volunteer positions.

On a bit of a more positive note, I've been impressed with the huge and very challenging work that the Circles of Support community does here. The best thing I could online was the wikipedia entry, not that there's anything wrong with that!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circles_of_Support_and_Accountability

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I want to know more about this bicycle, this sounds like a very slippery slope (ha, ha).

[Bea Arthur]

I don't think the offender lists go far enough. In the interests of protecting women, I think the state should include all the men who have a problem keeping their hands, their catcalls, or their other transparently patriarchal behaviors to themselves. Bet we'd see the recidivism on being a disgusting sexist pig decline dramatically.

[Luís Henrique]

I think the state should include all the men who have a problem keeping their hands, their catcalls, or their other transparently patriarchal behaviors to themselves.

Hm, have you considered that the State is part of the problem, patriarchy-wise?

Luís Henrique

[MichaelA1221]

Because sex offences can't be resolved by locking people in prisons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk They can be prevented from happening again though. I know you say being a pedophile is a mental disorder but if they abuse a child they are making a choice to harm another person and cause them life long harm. Being a pedophile doesn't mean they don't know the difference between right and wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

They can be prevented from happening again though.

Paedophilia is amongst one of the highest recidivism rates in the UK, and I imagine in the US too. It may prevent it for the period of time they are in prison, but unless you intend to keep them locked up until they die, the chances are they are going to do it again. Prison also doesn't act as a deterrent to other paedophiles who aren't in prison either.

The fact of the matter is that retributive justice doesn't work. Locking paedophiles in prisons isn't a solution to ending or dramatically reducing adults sexually abusing pre-pubescent children.

I'm not suggesting that people who abuse pre-pubescent children shouldn't be considered anti-social and therefore removed from society, because obviously once they commit an act of abuse they lose their privilege to engage in society, but we have to accept that the prison system as it is doesn't rehabilitate, deter or prevent child abuse.


I know you say being a pedophile is a mental disorder but if they abuse a child they are making a choice to harm another person and cause them life long harm. Being a pedophile doesn't mean they don't know the difference between right and wrong.

This is an interesting view, because you are essentially framing the motives of a paedophile as based on some kind of inherent evilness rather than on science...

When a person with schizophrenia has an episode and beheads someone (as happened in Spain recently), do we judge them based on their ability to know the difference between right and wrong? When a paedophile makes a choice to rape a pre-pubescent child, do you think that is a rational decision? Do you think a person who chooses to harm the body of a vulnerable, innocent child is making a reasoned choice? Or do you think there is some kind of psychiatric impairment that compels this decision, just as with the person who suffers from schizophrenia? The paedophile's choice may not be one that is made in the throws of a psychotic break (or maybe it is?), but it is certainly a break down in cognitive function. Aside from the notion that harming a child is evolutionarily incoherent, if paedophiles lack self-conceptualisation and an ability to empathise, can it be true that they know the difference between right and wrong?

For me the question is: how do we deal with this huge problem? When we consider paedophiles who are diagnosable as such, whom have never committed an offence or act of abuse, but suffer silently, probably terrified that at some point they might, how do we resolve that problem? How do we rehabilitate paedophiles? How do we ensure that they don't begin or continue to commit abuse?

Idiots like Zealot want to try and frame this debate in such a way that the only solution to this problem is retribution and that any one who suggests otherwise is either a paedophile themselves or complicit in its existence. This is simply a moderate version of widely held popular beliefs that paedophiles should be executed. In an atmosphere of such blind rage, how is it possible to have a constructive conversation about this topic? It simply isn't.

What we are left with is a situation in which paedophiles go underground, don't seek help and/or end up committing an act of abuse; are sent to prison where they receive the most rudimentary (to non-existent) psychiatric care and are then released back into the community where they most likely continue to abuse. By what stretch of intellect and reason does that make sense?

Unless society is prepared to deal with the root causes of paedophilia and create an atmosphere that allows people who are suffering this mental disorder to come forward and be provided help (just like any other mental disorder), then we are never going to make any steps to resolving it.