Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Not really, because generally speaking the homosexual wouldn't look to commit rape. The paedophile may well do... no? How do you know? I wager that assumption is based on the stigmatised view of paedophiles as predators, but is there actual research backing this up? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't people also have this exact prejudice about homosexuals way back - that they were sexual predators incapable of controlling their urges? Today we all know at least one gay person and thus know it's not true, but paedophilia is still stigmatised, meaning we only ever hear about the ones that do bad things. My point is that we need to research and understand paedophilia so we can find out how best to help them instead of demonising them based on the attraction itself.
Kav Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 How do you know? I wager that assumption is based on the stigmatised view of paedophiles as predators, but is there actual research backing this up? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't people also have this exact prejudice about homosexuals way back - that they were sexual predators incapable of controlling their urges? Today we all know at least one gay person and thus know it's not true, but paedophilia is still stigmatised, meaning we only ever hear about the ones that do bad things. My point is that we need to research and understand paedophilia so we can find out how best to help them instead of demonising them based on the attraction itself. I've not said the paedophile would, I asked the question. I don't know. But still, would you let your own child stay in the same room with the paedophile? Why'd you decide to avoid that question? I actually know a paedophile, known him for most of my life. He fled the country when he got found out and eventually Interpol caught him. He's currently serving time in prison and has to sign the sex offenders register for 15 years. If I ever saw him again I'd absolutely kick the crap out of him... but also because there are other circumstances surrounding the situation.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I've not said the paedophile would, I asked the question. I don't know. But still, would you let your own child stay in the same room with the paedophile? Why'd you decide to avoid that question? I actually know a paedophile, known him for most of my life. He fled the country when he got found out and eventually Interpol caught him. He's currently serving time in prison and has to sign the sex offenders register for 15 years. If I ever saw him again I'd absolutely kick the crap out of him... but also because there are other circumstances surrounding the situation. I avoided the question because I, like you, simply don't know enough about it. That's my entire point - all we have are stereotypical assumptions, and thus we shouldn't be quick to judge.
Kav Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I avoided the question because I, like you, simply don't know enough about it. That's my entire point - all we have are stereotypical assumptions, and thus we shouldn't be quick to judge. Still, I can answer. No I wouldn't leave my child in a room alone with a paedophile.
Jonnas Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 In regards to "is it simply a sexual preference just like homosexuality is?", I can't quite see it as being that. Would any of you let a paedophile stay in a room alone with your child? If not, would you let someone that is gay stay in a room with your child? If yes, why not the paedophile? People may say that the child would not be at risk being in a room with a homosexual and they would with a paedophile, but then would an adult of the same sex be at risk with in a room with a homosexual? Not really, because generally speaking the homosexual wouldn't look to commit rape. The paedophile may well do... no? I just don't see it as the same. They are, at core, different sexual preferences (so, in this referential, "the same"), but with different real life social consequences (where the difference lies). I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise.
Diageo Posted January 11, 2014 Author Posted January 11, 2014 Well I wouldn't leave a paedophile with my child in the same way I wouldn't leave a thief with my expensive possessions. But leaving a gay adult with a straight adult friend of mine is fine, because if the homosexual made a move on the straight person, it wouldn't be any of my business as they are consenting or unconsenting adults.
Kav Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) Well I wouldn't leave a paedophile with my child in the same way I wouldn't leave a thief with my expensive possessions. But leaving a gay adult with a straight adult friend of mine is fine, because if the homosexual made a move on the straight person, it wouldn't be any of my business as they are consenting or unconsenting adults. But what if the gay person sexually assaults the other person? It could happen, regardless of consent. Also, a thief may choose not to steal any of your possessions and the paedophile may not sexually assault the child. Isn't that right @Dannyboy\-the\-Dane? We shouldn't be so quick to judge, let's all give the paedo a chance eh? But Diageo, yeah, you'd not be willing to chance it, as I wouldn't either. I in no way see paedophilia in the way of "it's just a sexual preference". The whole nature of it goes against consent. Which is why if it could be cured I'd say yes, cure it. How Danny-boy can't answer the question though I don't get. If he had a child he couldn't say yes or no as to whether he'd let the child stay in a room with a paedophile... crazy! Edited January 11, 2014 by Kav
The Peeps Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 You should probably stop hounding Dannyboy like that, you're coming across as quite aggressive. There's more risk involved if you leave a child with a paedophile I think but that's because children as less capable of understanding adult situations and wouldn't really know the potential danger they were in. It's more tempting for the paedophile because it's easier to do maybe? Having said that, there's still no way he'd ever get away with it. It would have to involve child abduction (potentially leading to murder) or at the very least he would have to spend the rest of his life on the run. Sure we see news stories all the time of people doing exactly that but that has to be the minority of paedophiles? As Dannyboy says, we don't know enough about it. Is it just a sexual urge most of them can easily ignore? Are there more cases of paedophilia than there are of 'standard' rape?
Goafer Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I in no way see paedophilia in the way of "it's just a sexual preference". The whole nature of it goes against consent. But does it though? Just because there is no way for the kids to give consent, doesn't mean that the paedophile is turned on by the fact. The problem comes from what sort of paedophiles we see, ie we only see the ones on the news who are also rapists. I imagine there are loads of "closet paedophiles" who are attracted to kids, but have sufficient morals to know that it's wrong and never act on it, much like any other person knows that no consent = no sex. Now that person might want to come forward for therapy/"the cure", but will be scared to since he'll/she'll be labelled a nonce and be almost universally hated. I think what I'm saying is that there needs to be a way for paedophiles to come forward and ask for help, without being crucified. Maybe that way, they can get help before they turn to child pornography or worse. I'm all for a "cure" if it's consensual and I can see why someone would want it if their only other options are sexual frustration or breaking the law in pretty much the worst way possible.
Kav Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I don't mean to come off as aggressive, sorry if it was seen that way. I'm just bemused as to how the question couldn't be answered because we "don't know enough"... I feel I know enough to not leave my child with a paedophile. Like Diageo said, I'd not leave my possessions with a thief either.
Sheikah Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 If I had a child I would not leave my child with one, nor would I leave my child with a stranger - straight or homosexual. It's a case of reducing risk. I don't think any good parent would say yes to that, because being a parent is all about reducing risk to your children. Wait for the green man when crossing the road, teach them to be safe when out and about, etc. Even though nothing may well happen, it's still higher risk.
bob Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Paedophilia is not the same as child abuse. Paedophilia is not illegal, as in its not illegal to find a child attractive, but it is illegal to touch them/rape them etc (obvs). I think if I knew the person, and they had never abused a child (and could somehow prove it) then I would leave my fictional child with them. I would happily be in the room with a gay person, but would feel uncomfortable being in a room with a rapist.
Diageo Posted January 12, 2014 Author Posted January 12, 2014 I don't mean to come off as aggressive, sorry if it was seen that way. I'm just bemused as to how the question couldn't be answered because we "don't know enough"... I feel I know enough to not leave my child with a paedophile. Like Diageo said, I'd not leave my possessions with a thief either. I likened paedophiles to thieves because just like posessions, children can't properly defend themselves or understand they what is going on is wrong. However, another adult with any stranger, such as a homosexual or heterosexual could be attacked or raped, but they would be able to understand the situation is dangerous, defend themselves, and call for help. The risk is much lower. I would put paedophiles at higher risk than homosexuals because they are encouraged to hide their urges and are not able to act on them, and so are more likely to have to resort to more drastic measures and hide it. This doesn't mean I don't think it's a sexual preference, I just think that statistically it would be higher risk.
Goafer Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I likened paedophiles to thieves because just like posessions, children can't properly defend themselves or understand they what is going on is wrong. Tell that to the wet bandits.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 @kav82, I feel I've already explained my reasoning quite well, but @Dr\. bob have been kind enough to further elucidate my point. I still don't feel I can simply give a straight, general answer; if I actually knew somebody was a paedophile, the first thing I'd do would probably be to ask them a lot of questions to get to know them and their paraphilia, because, as mentioned, I feel we don't know enough about it. As Dr. bob says, if I knew and trusted the individual, then yes, I probably wouldn't mind it - though I hardly think a morally conscientious paedophile would like to be given the responsibility of a child. If I didn't know and trust an individual, I wouldn't leave my kid in their care to begin with, paedophile or not.
Esequiel Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Still, I can answer. No I wouldn't leave my child in a room alone with a paedophile. Really find this tropic interesting, although it brings up some bad memories. My own father was arrested 6 years ago for interfeering with my 3 step sisters, aged between 9 and 20. Apparently it went on for a number of years, some of the time while i was living there. Really really long story that i will explain if people want to hear it but for the TL:DR my dad basically lied, told me that it wasnt true etc etc And then stood in a court full of people and plead guilty. I had to listen to the details of what had occured and what he had done. I cut all tied with him, he never met his second grandson and his first grandson was only one and he doesnt remember him. Me and my wife have told the kids that hes dead. Still think about him though and wonder what he is doing and how he is.
MoogleViper Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 In regards to "is it simply a sexual preference just like homosexuality is?", I can't quite see it as being that. Would any of you let a paedophile stay in a room alone with your child? If not, would you let someone that is gay stay in a room with your child? If yes, why not the paedophile? Well a homosexual isn't interested in children, and paedophile is. People may say that the child would not be at risk being in a room with a homosexual and they would with a paedophile, but then would an adult of the same sex be at risk with in a room with a homosexual? Not really, because generally speaking the homosexual wouldn't look to commit rape. The paedophile may well do... no? But a homosexual can engage in consensual sex, a paedophile cannot. The only outlet for a paedophile is statutory rape. I actually know a paedophile, known him for most of my life. He fled the country when he got found out and eventually Interpol caught him. He's currently serving time in prison and has to sign the sex offenders register for 15 years. If I ever saw him again I'd absolutely kick the crap out of him... but also because there are other circumstances surrounding the situation. But you're only talking about paedophiles who have acted on their urges. As Goafer said, there are plenty of paedophiles who know it is wrong, and have therefore acted upon it. Essentially you're comparing rapists to non-rapists. Plenty of men have raped women. Does that mean that any man who finds women attractive is going to rape them? Of course not. Just like not everybody who is attracted to children will rape them.
Kav Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 ...But you're only talking about paedophiles who have acted on their urges. As Goafer said, there are plenty of paedophiles who know it is wrong, and have therefore acted upon it. Essentially you're comparing rapists to non-rapists. Plenty of men have raped women. Does that mean that any man who finds women attractive is going to rape them? Of course not. Just like not everybody who is attracted to children will rape them. No I'm not, as I've said in one of my posts, the paedophile may well not act on his urges and the child wouldn't be raped. Even so, I'd not let my child be alone with a paedophile. The paedophile I know never acted on his urges, he was sent down for having child pornography. Even though I've known him almost 30 years, I'd not let a child near him.
Sheikah Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 The only way for them to satisfy their urges is to do the unthinkable, whereas a regular man can form a consensual relationship with another adult. I think that's the key difference and why you wouldn't leave your child with one. They have no other outlet that so closely mirrors what they may really want. Really though, I think everyone who has a child wouldn't choose to leave their child with one. It's fine to argue the defence of someone who may not wish to act upon their urges, but in reality I doubt many good parents would be so trusting. Risk reduction and all that.
Diageo Posted April 14, 2014 Author Posted April 14, 2014 Is democracy the best form of government? And if not, then what is? I've been thinking and talking about this recently and I honestly think it's not. Not even close. Right now, government appears to be a popularity contest where a face is promoted with the majority of people basing their votes on incredibly stupid reasons. Politicians are not educated in any of the things they make decisions about and work in an environment that promotes corruption and has no transparency. I think government should be created from individuals that are highly educated in the area that they are going to be overseeing, without a mass voting system that depends on things like making promises and people pleasing. The kinks still have to be worked out but I don't even think everyone should get a vote that is equal. Some people are just way more qualified to make decisions about how a country is run and I don't think Ben the priest and Mary the housewife should get the same power in deciding how the country is run as a Professor in Economics.
Woz Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Don't know if anyone has seen this documentary about Louis Theroux spending time with sex offenders? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b040qrxw
Kav Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 Don't know if anyone has seen this documentary about Louis Theroux spending time with sex offenders? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b040qrxw I can't believe his parents left him alone with them :p
Jonnas Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 I've been thinking and talking about this recently and I honestly think it's not. Not even close. Right now, government appears to be a popularity contest where a face is promoted with the majority of people basing their votes on incredibly stupid reasons. Politicians are not educated in any of the things they make decisions about and work in an environment that promotes corruption and has no transparency. I think government should be created from individuals that are highly educated in the area that they are going to be overseeing, without a mass voting system that depends on things like making promises and people pleasing. The kinks still have to be worked out but I don't even think everyone should get a vote that is equal. Some people are just way more qualified to make decisions about how a country is run and I don't think Ben the priest and Mary the housewife should get the same power in deciding how the country is run as a Professor in Economics. How many of these are actually flaws with democracy, though? How many of those are flaws with every form of government we encountered? The bigger the government is, the less transparent it is going to be. I'd be surprised if a non-democratic government was significantly more transparent. Corruption and back-patting are also rampant in pretty much every form of government. The "limit the vote to a select few people" system has been tried a few times before. It was just easier to bribe the electorate, and encourage governments to favour a specific slice of the population. That's the main advantage with letting "the proles" vote. As small as it might be, it actually forces politicians to address their issues in one way or another (instead of, say, letting them eat cake).
Diageo Posted April 14, 2014 Author Posted April 14, 2014 How many of these are actually flaws with democracy, though? How many of those are flaws with every form of government we encountered? The bigger the government is, the less transparent it is going to be. I'd be surprised if a non-democratic government was significantly more transparent. Corruption and back-patting are also rampant in pretty much every form of government. The "limit the vote to a select few people" system has been tried a few times before. It was just easier to bribe the electorate, and encourage governments to favour a specific slice of the population. That's the main advantage with letting "the proles" vote. As small as it might be, it actually forces politicians to address their issues in one way or another (instead of, say, letting them eat cake). Well is it not already easy to just bribe the people in charge of overseeing ballet counting? I wouldn't say have only a select few vote, but instead use weighted system where some voters get more voting power than others. I don't think having the "proles" vote forces politicians address their issues. If anything, it gets them to create catchy slogans, make promises they can't keep, and create laws because they sound good to a layman as opposed to actually being good. Lastly, I don't know if it would still be called democracy, but if we had the system we had now, but elected government officials that were actually experts in the area they are being elected to, then I would think it would work much better. Having people creating laws to restrict the internet when they have no idea how the internet works or how it impacts the population, is a bit ridiculous.
Agent Gibbs Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 I've also began to feel that democracy in its current form is not working, the systems have become so corrupt and futile In the Uk the only parties with the actual prospect of power are Labour, Conservative and as a rank outsider the lib dems, and each one has become a shadow of its former self, offering populist policies they never intend on delivering on, and producing acts/bills and laws that only serve the political class.... That in itself is a problem, there is an entire class of career politicians devoid of any form of wider consensus on the population, so out of touch with the public its amazing Right now its not a case of voting for the best party or politician, its voting for the lesser of the evils, the party least likely to screw up Its the same if not worse in america, where there are only two polarised parties, no middle ground and each party gets to power on the prospect of removing the laws passed by the other The original concept of democracy is gone from society, what we have is bastardised version of it. Government is voted for by the people to govern the people and their best interests, to be the best and brightest, ever striving for the long term goals of progression......but what we get are career politicians focused on the next short term big thing, producing crazy legacies, aiding their friends and blaming all woes on the previous government. Politicians who aren't career politicians, who experienced life, and work for the betterment of society are shunned by the old boys network and pale into obscurity, or become one of them. i wonder if an Autocracy or even Monarchy with the right leader would be the better option, surely it couldn't be any worse than the current system? I suppose in essence it would be good if the best person for the job actually got it
Recommended Posts