|
|
tim
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
I think this has been raised in my mind by the excellent results the police in the UK and Europe have had in smashing an evil ring of men who defiled children for sex. Though I suspect it was not only men. But it lead me to think about the topic of paedophilia. I am using as my definition NOT the age of legal consent, but the biological definition of juvenile body form. Pre puberty. Children.
It strikes my amateur psychologist's brian that there must surely be two broad classes of people who have sex with children.- Those who have not themselves fully matured, who are at an arrested stage of sexual development, and who are still thinking about or acting out their fantasies with the "mind" of a child but the body of an adult.
- Those who have a desire simply to have sex with children, often pretending love, but universally causing pain.
It seems to me that each is harmful, however gentle their acts may be. In fact I want to state categorically that each causes harm by performing any sexual act with a child, even if the child enjoyed the physical or emotional closeness which can sometimes be created.
But I would draw a serious disticntion between class 1 and class 2.
Class 1 has a different agenda from class 2. Class 1 may be seen by anyone capabale of standing back beyond the edge of "I am disgusted" as a person whose body is the wrong age, but who is playing childhood games. At 10 years old there was nothing wrong with paying doctors and nurses. If the older person is even 16 or 17 the game becomes unacceptable. And quite rightly so. But the cause is harder to see. And whiel the chld must be protected, the victim is not just thye child bu tth eolder person too, for they are sexually retarded in some way (which may have been abuse themselves as a child)
Class 2 is very different. Class 2 is not innocent, but has an agenda of pain and abuse, though often pretends love and compassion. While there may be some sort of history that created the need to dominate a child, there can be no excuse of play as in class 1, since the entire "process" is one of beastliness, not of the "fun" I would expect a class 1 person to generate. (Do please note my use of quotation marks to signify tone of voice)
Please be clear. Class 1 and class 2 cause harm. Probably equal amounts of harm. The child sees the end result, not the intent. But surely it is our duty in society to handle each class differently? And that is my point, or my question.
Should all paedophiles be classified as dangerous and confined, or is there a way of differentiating between them and helping the helpable (and this means those who truly desire help), while restraining those who are beyond help and are at best habitual and at worst determined abusers?
Society at present screams "Paedophile, lock him away", but surely this is media hype to sell papers? Surely we can do better than that over simplistic sabre rattling?
By the way it is "fun" to note that I get regular approaches from what I conclude are government agencies seeking to entrap. I say "fun" because these people often masquerade as young kids in trouble. My problem is that I need to treat them each as genuine until they choose to go away. But until we solve the problems of child abuse, which I doubt will be soluble, I am content that such "plants" exist and test us all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
Bravo, Tim. Well reasoned. I would like to relate to the last paragraph of your message. However much we may feel at home on this message board, it is still a public forum. My mother used to teach me that when you are speaking in public you must always bear in mind "of whom you speak, to whom you speak, and how and where and when". (She always had precepts like that, some more some less sage.) Also, it would do no harm to bear in mind what Shakespeare wrote: "All that glisters is not gold". And the old Roman addage: "Caveat emptor".
Sat. verb. sap. 
And if you don't speak Latin look it up in an almanac.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
It seems to me that a class 1 person is likely to remain at class 1 unless some othe rstimulus take sover and prompts full scale abusive behaviour. Just such a trigger might be a custodial sentence in a harsh regime, the "nothing left to lose" concept.
But class 2 people are created by many mechanisms. They do not "have to pass through class 1". This is a very similar argument to the one that says that canabis doe snto lead to heroin. The truth of the argument depends on where you stand. An abused child stands firmly in the position that "any abuse is an abuse too many". A journalist stands on a "this will make my reputation" position.
Where do those of us who have not been abused, are not likely to abuse and have no vested interest in speaking about abuse stand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know you werent trying to justify this sort of thing Tim but, some might see it as so. The misnomer Pedarist & boylover are touted a lot and then there is the defence of I was so, I did it as an adult>???
There is no way that a boy wants the type of LOVE that an adult pursues in regards to sex. A boy wants to be hugged and told he is a good person, loved for NO other reason than he is a person. A boy looks for his Dad to fulfill that role and is not so suspect of an older man who shows it, especially when the boy GETS none from a Father for whatever reasons.
The person that has sex with children is betraying a trust, a tacit one no doubt but, none the less as bad.. I am sorry if it seems negative but it is how I feel..
People have a habit of changing your direction through life
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
Abuse is abuse, whatever the motives of the abuser
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
I think that in your example, class 1 is simply one possible explaination for the abuse perpetrated by class 2. There are others, but in general, abusers are simply out to have sex with children.
IMHO there really are two classes of abuser, but not the two you describe. There is the abuser who pretends to love and attempts to be gentle and justifies the abuse he/she commits by claiming the the child enjoyed it, or that the child wanted it, or that it caused no harm. Then there is the abuser who simply doesn't care whether he/she has caused harm. In both instances the abuser harms the child and in both instances it is difficult, if not impossible, to treat or rehabilitate the abuser.
If you look at paedophilia as being a sexual orientation, you can get an idea of why it is so difficult to treat. No one with any real credibility really believes that homosexuals can be "treated" or "cured." I believe the same holds true for paedophiles. The major difference being that hetero-, bi-, and homo- sexuals are not inherently harmful orientations. While paedophilia is. Once a person becomes conditioned to respond sexually to a particular stimulus, it is nearly impossible to re-condition them not to become aroused by that particular stimulus. Thus if a person is sexually aroused by children, it is quite likely that the person will always be sexually aroused by children.
There are many possible explainations or reasons why paedophiles commit abuse, but one characteristic that is quite common is that they tend to suffer from very low self-esteem and have feelings of inadequacy. This isn't just a temporary condition. It has generally become ingrained into the personality.
A child is easy to dominate, influence, and control. The paedophile quite often compensates for those feelings of inadequacy with the sense of power gained by controlling the child. It is much more difficult to dominate and control an adult, especially for someone who already feels inferior.
So we are really looking at two main components that make paedophilia difficult to treat. The feeling of power and self-worth that comes from dominating another person and that the paedophile is aroused sexually by children.
I believe that the difference between an active paedophile (one who is actively abusing children) and an inactive paedophile (one who is aroused by children, but who does not act upon that arousal) is that the latter does not suffer from the lower self-esteem and/or feelings of inadequacy. Low self-esteem, when ingrained into the personality (much like chronic depression) is quite difficult to treat successfully.
Therefore an inactive paedophile is no real threat to society (though at some point they could become active), while an active paedophile is likely to remain a threat regardless of treatment. No treatment (even chemical castration) has been shown to be particularly effective in traeating an active paedophile.
These are just my own opinions. But they have been formulated after several years of counseling and working with abused children and their abusers. As well as having read a good deal of research on this topic.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
And these few precepts in thy memory see thou character :-) 
There can not be justification 
