How society needs to approach paedophilia (Mod warning post #12)

WindSock

A lot of tl;dr for the last few pages but from what I can gather:

Paedophila = Wrong, I think everyone is agreed
Studying Paedophilia = Also wrong and doesn't address the victim and their needs?

I don't understand that bit. Studying how child abusers operate invalidates a victim, so they should just be locked up forever and never talked about again?

Ickle Magoo

WindSock wrote: »

A lot of tl;dr for the last few pages but from what I can gather:

Paedophila = Wrong, I think everyone is agreed
Studying Paedophilia = Also wrong and doesn't address the victim and their needs?

I don't understand that bit. Studying how child abusers operate invalidates a victim, so they should just be locked up forever and never talked about again?

See, that's the problem with not reading the last few pages... :P

Red Marauder suggested victims of abuse were irrelevant to the study of paedophiles and paedophile abusers, several posters disagreed.

And yes, many people would be delighted if paedophiles that were convicted of abusing children were locked up for life, I don't think that necessarily equates to never talking to or about them again though.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And then you say exactly the opposite:
Either it's a potential aid, or a potential solution. I've already agreed it could be an aid, I absolutely disagree it is a solution, potential or otherwise.

I didn't say the solution - I said solutions plural. Read the post. There are a number of potential solutions to the high incidence of child abuse, I'm not saying that any one of them is 100% effective. You're dealing in pedantics here, it's pointless.

No, your argument doesn't make sense. You've gone from claiming "society" should "de-stigmatise" and "engage with" paedophiles for the sake of child safety in general, to suggesting that if only one child is saved then dialogue is worthwhile.

Actually, neither statement is in conflict with the other.

I would like for you to explain to everyone, as explicitly as you can, how exactly engaging with these topics, or with paedophiles, is harmful to children.

Society cannot warn children that such people exist & what their MO may be, without automatically stigmatising paedophilia & paedophiles.

Personally I think a strong line needs to be drawn in the proverbial cement between paedophilia and child abuse.
I have already said I think that de-stigmatising inactive paedophilia if it were to be found that it is a biologically derived behaviour largely or wholly out of the control of the subject, could help us deal very effectively with people who are troubled by paedophilic thoughts. I think that's a fair position to take. So I think you're probably quite wrong.

For as long as there are paedophiles, abusers who try to evade detection and those deliberately grooming children to secretly fulfil their desires then paedophiles will be stigmatised.

This is at the crux of the issue.

What benefit does stigma draw?

I am afraid that it probably heightens an individual's fear in coming forward, and in turn, leaves a paedophile alone to deal with psychologically troubling thought patterns - and that is not to anyone's benefit.
Just because we say "you can't help these thoughts" to a paedophile, wouldn't make child abuse okay - but it could help us fight abuse.

I am very troubled by the fact that the first means of contact a paedophile has with psychiatrists or the authorities is often after he or she has abused, and perhaps abused multiple children, and I fear stigma just intensifies this. This is wrong.

I think you should stop looking at society and blaming them for not wanting to understand or support people who fantasise about or actually hurt them/their children.

In my opinion, their discomfort with paedophiles, or their refusal to examine the issue in the clear light of day, is not helping children and may be doing future generations in this country a great dis-service.

I think professional engagement is a rather obvious approach. Are you suggesting that no-one is currently involved in professional engagement with paedophiles? That there are no studies of paedophiles currently being conducted? I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Read through the thread.

The point is that for a country with a history of such scandalous approach to child welfare, and such an inexcusable attitude to dealing with the issue, we still have no national plan to tackle abuse that engages with paedophiles/ abusers or examines those who are detained in our prison system. They're just sitting there waiting for release when they could be providing researchers with valuable data.

Piecing together pieces of international studies is something, but we need a serious look at paedophilia in this society, which is what the thread is about.

You asked how society approaches paedophilia, the vast majority of society pray that no child they know ever falls foul of one of the hundreds of thousands of predatory paedophiles that exist among us.

I get the impression this is a big part of the reason people are uncomfortable with this issue. They are afraid of who could be paedophilic - we are fine with the image of the dark, disfigured loner, but the idea that a paedophile could be a normal-seeming individual like a dad or a gym buddy is too unpalatable, because it might force us to engage with the fact that paedophiles on the surface may just be like you or I.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Red Marauder suggested victims of abuse were irrelevant to the study of paedophiles and paedophile abusers, several posters disagreed.

They are irrelevant to studies like histopatholigical examinations of deceased convicts of child abuse, and irrelevant to genetics tests that are carried out in research laboratories. That was my point. They're not irrelevant to the overall issue.

If you feel the need to summarise, get it right.

WindSock

I can see where Red Marauder is coming from.

We know of the impact on the victims
We know there can be long term implications
We know they were in the wrong company at the wrong time and it is never their fault for it.
We know it is an absolutely horrific and unfathomable act perpetrated on a child.

If there is more we need to know about the victims then there of course should be more studies.

However this thread is about perpetraitors. They need separate studies. I don't see how they can be lumped in with the same study as a victim as they are two opposing ends.

I don't want to come across as dismissive to victims by the way, I don't think anyone here does.

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I would like for you to explain to everyone, as explicitly as you can, how exactly engaging with these topics, or with paedophiles, is harmful to children.

Where did I say that. You can point at the numerous times I've repeated that I actively encourage the study of paedophiles - if you are going to ignore me and keep churning out the same crap to serve your own interests while ignoring what people are actually posting, then it's pointless debating with you.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Personally I think a strong line needs to be drawn in the proverbial cement between paedophilia and child abuse.
I have already said I think that de-stigmatising inactive paedophilia if it were to be found that it is a biologically derived behaviour largely of the control of the subject, could help us deal very effectively with people who are troubled by paedophilic thoughts. I think that's a fair position to take. So I think you're probably quite wrong.

And I'll say again, there are far too many if's and maybes in your position. You cannot seriously expect society to de-stigmatise paedophilia based on a vague hope that that may improve matters. Someone who fantasises about having sex with a child is always going to be at risk of carrying out that fantasy, in this society - that is unacceptable and there for stigmatised. I cannot envisage a day that someone wanting to and fantasising about having sex with a child is deemed societally acceptable and so de-stigmatised.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

What benefit does stigma draw?

It's not about benefits. You cannot just wipe out the stigma that people sexually attracted to children carry for as long as any paedophile is abusing a child. There will always be an associated stigma to being a potential risk to children or fantasising about sex with children - I'm not sure how you can't see that.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I am afraid that it probably heightens an individual's fear in coming forward, and in turn, leaves a paedophile alone to deal with psychologically troubling thought patterns - and that is not to anyone's benefit.
Just because we say "you can't help these thoughts" to a paedophile, wouldn't make child abuse okay - but it could help us fight abuse.

I don't know anything about how Ireland deals specifically with paedophilia and what support is there for those who want it, I suspect it's seriously lacking for both victim and perpetrator. At no point did you specify you were only discussing Irish society; there should certainly be all the help and support available to paedophiles who don't want to abuse, I said that in my first post.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I am very troubled by the fact that the first means of contact a paedophile has with psychiatrists or the authorities is often after he or she has abused, and perhaps abused multiple children, and I fear stigma just intensifies this. This is wrong.

What's wrong is someone abusing children. There is nothing wrong with stigmatising someone who chooses to abuse children or dreams of abusing children, the alternative is to normalise it. I think your logic is on it's head.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I get the impression this is a big part of the reason people are uncomfortable with this issue. They are afraid of who could be paedophilic - we are fine with the image of the dark, disfigured loner, but the idea that a paedophile could be a normal-seeming individual like a dad or a gym buddy is too unpalatable, because it might force us to engage with the fact that paedophiles on the surface may just be like you or I.

I disagree, how brilliant at ingratiating themselves with families and children & their deliberate efforts to evade detection to give them the power and opportunity to abuse is what makes paedophiles so terrifying. If it was just the odd weirdo loner that could be spotted a mile away then I suspect there would be a great deal less fear and anger.

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

They are irrelevant to studies like histopatholigical examinations of deceased convicts of child abuse, and irrelevant to genetics tests that are carried out in research laboratories. That was my point. They're not irrelevant to the overall issue.

If you feel the need to summarise, get it right.

And if you'd stated the above instead of the rather woolly;

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The perspective of the victim as a victim is not really going to provide any answers as to how we understand the origins of paedophilia.

Then I doubt you would have had the reaction you did.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And if you'd stated the above instead of the rather woolly;

Originally Posted by Red_Marauder
The perspective of the victim as a victim is not really going to provide any answers as to how we understand the origins of paedophilia.

Then I doubt you would have had the reaction you did.

I seriously suspect you didn't read the original posts or were not really following the discussion, because that particular quotation is about clinical examination.
I still think that the victim has no real relevance to the clinical work-up on the abuser, and I'm sure no victim would want to have any either.

Red_Marauder

Originally Posted by Red_Marauder
I would like for you to explain to everyone, as explicitly as you can, how exactly engaging with these topics, or with paedophiles, is harmful to children.

Where did I say that.

Read this:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I suspect "society", which is what you specifically wanted debate on, has no intention of de-stigmatising or offering mass support and understanding of paedophilia for the sake of saving "one or a handful of children" when doing that could place thousands of others in danger.

Now if your argument is that society believes it could put thousands in danger, fair enough, it's poorly worded. But it comes across in that quotation that it has been established that thousands would be put in danger.

You cannot seriously expect society to de-stigmatise paedophilia based on a vague hope that that may improve matters.

Despite what my personal instincts might tell me - or might tell most of us - I haven't actually said that paedophilia cannot be controlled by the paedophile personally. All I'm asking is that we first examine that issue, and if it is found that these individuals cannot control their thought patterns as they relate to assaults on minors, then we lay off a bit on the stigma for the non-active paedophiles. I think that's fair.

Someone who fantasises about having sex with a child is always going to be at risk of carrying out that fantasy

Sure. All I'm saying is we need to do our best to find those who fantasise about assaults on minors and if possible, encourage them to come forward for their own good and for the good of us all.

I cannot envisage a day that someone wanting to and fantasising about having sex with a child is deemed societally acceptable and so de-stigmatised.

Well, we don't know enough about paedophilia yet, even at an international level. We just haven't established enough about its nature to say they deserve stigma, or not.

I don't know anything about how Ireland deals specifically with paedophilia and what support is there for those who want it, I suspect it's seriously lacking for both victim and perpetrator. At no point did you specify you were only discussing Irish society;

I have repeatedly referred to this society, Irish sexual abuse history, the church and things like The Murphy Report. It's not my fault if you're reading something else into my posts or arguing based on assumptions.
I'm not ruling out the international aspect, i just think we need our own research efforts on this topic.

Originally Posted by Red_Marauder
I am very troubled by the fact that the first means of contact a paedophile has with psychiatrists or the authorities is often after he or she has abused, and perhaps abused multiple children, and I fear stigma just intensifies this. This is wrong.

What's wrong is someone abusing children. There is nothing wrong with stigmatising someone who chooses to abuse children or dreams of abusing children, the alternative is to normalise it. I think your logic is on it's head.

Read the post. I am saying it is wrong that someone who has paedophilic behavioural or thought patterns only comes to Garda and psychiatric attention when it is too late. I don't think you disagree, I just think you're pointlessly arguing it.

seahorse

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I'm not in favour of ruling out potential solutions to problems before they have been examined.

I had hoped to be able to step out of this discussion but I have to point out to you and bring to the attention of anyone else reading this thread that your comment above is blatantly false.

Anyone who has read your responses to me will see this very plainly. You spent numerous posts arguing in detail your position for ruling out potential solutions to problems before they've been examined. There is a single criterion you use to do this, and that is that full and detailed analysis of the abuse as experience by the victim should be ignored.

Midlandmissus pointed out recently in the thread that depersonalisation of victims is classic paedophile behaviour. This is a well-documented fact in criminology and is true for perpetrators of all sorts of violence, from handbag snatchers to gang-rapists. I think that you need to examine your position here because I believe it is exactly that attitude (relegating the abuse victims experience to the realms of the irrelevant) that drew the observation from another poster which you received as offensive.

To conclude, you certainly are in favour of ruling out potential solutions to problems before they have been examined, given that those potential solutions should require focusing on the relevance of the abuse experience. Framing the victims experience as irrelevant is an illogical and unnatural stance and I think you need to deeply consider and examine that. I do not believe that any in-depth analysis of paedophilia is anything approaching complete without a thorough dissection of their behaviour, and a thorough dissection of their behaviour is not complete without the repercussions of it. All of this is very clear and very obvious and your determination to ignore it smacks of a stance that refuses to acknowledge the reality and the relevance of child sexual abuse.

Red_Marauder

seahorse wrote: »

I....

For the benefit of everyone else in the thread I'm going to try not destroy their sanity by going over it again.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64269850&postcount=155

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seahorse

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No such insinuation was made by me. That assumption is personal conjecture on your part. I think it says a lot about your own attitude that you are willing to hand out infractions like confetti on this thread yet you ignored the biggest and deepest personal insult of all, which was when an abuse survivor was told by the OP that her experience had no relevance.

ChocolateSauce

seahorse wrote: »

No such insinuation was made by me. That assumption is personal conjecture on your part. I think it says a lot about your own attitude that you are willing to hand out infractions like confetti on this thread yet you ignored the biggest and deepest personal insult of all, which was when an abuse survivor was told by the OP that her experience had no relevance.

Testimonials have zero relevance to science in all circumstances. Ergo, saying that victim impact has no place in a scientific study of the biology of a person is 100% correct. Take testimonial evidence to court, not to the lab.

Furthermore, RM stated that these testimonials do have relevance when the whole picture is looked at. This rules out the possibility that he has dismissed the victims overall. This leads directly to the conclusions that you, midlandmissus, and meic seem unable to grasp the concept of scientific research (which is based on measurements; you can't measure harm done to children with science), which is what red marauder was largely talking about.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fighting_Irish

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Okay I can see where this is going. How about putting it this way first. Take the non-abusive paedophile who doesn't wish to engage in abuse or have anything to do with the child abuse industry but nevertheless has this paedophilic tendancy.

How do we as a society approach that situation? Is it possible that he does not choose this tendency, and can he (typically, we assume the subject to be male) be helped?

by law being attracted to anyone under 18 is pretty much making you a paedophile, when i was 15 i knew plenty of girls in school that were hot, me being 25 now doesn't mean these 15/16 yo girls aren't hot anymore

by law, i'd say 99% of men have a paedophilic tendancy

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

(which is based on measurements; you can't measure harm done to children with science)

Well actually you can, but I don't think whether you can or can't detracts from your point about personal testimony.

Fighting_Irish

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

By law there isn't

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Read this:

Now if your argument is that society believes it could put thousands in danger, fair enough, it's poorly worded. But it comes across in that quotation that it has been established that thousands would be put in danger.

No, de-stigmatising paedophilia, normalising it, not warning children about the ulterior motives some people can have would very obviously put others in danger - common sense would dictate that. You cannot have the risk recognised & such people highlighted and also remove the stigma, it's one or the other.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Despite what my personal instincts might tell me - or might tell most of us - I haven't actually said that paedophilia cannot be controlled by the paedophile personally. All I'm asking is that we first examine that issue, and if it is found that these individuals cannot control their thought patterns as they relate to assaults on minors, then we lay off a bit on the stigma for the non-active paedophiles. I think that's fair.

There is nothing about downplaying the threat that such people permanently pose to some of the most vulnerable members of society that is fair. I'm all for more study, greater analysis, all the help and support anyone in society needs not to commit violent crime - but I think to suggest that society "lays off a bit on the stigma" for people who get turned on by, masturbate over, and fantasise about committing child abuse and child rape is, frankly, ridiculous.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Sure. All I'm saying is we need to do our best to find those who fantasise about assaults on minors and if possible, encourage them to come forward for their own good and for the good of us all.

Absolutely, encourage away but I think you have to be realistic. There are a not insignificant number of paedophiles who clearly do not want help, they do not fight whatever urges they have - some even deliberately choose to work with children or get in closer contact with children so that they may groom and abuse. Encouraging paedophiles to seek help is fine in theory, I can't imagine anyone who would argue otherwise - the trouble is that even with all the help and support you could ever imagine at their disposal, some paedophiles will still choose to abuse or rape children.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Well, we don't know enough about paedophilia yet, even at an international level. We just haven't established enough about its nature to say they deserve stigma, or not.
I have repeatedly referred to this society, Irish sexual abuse history, the church and things like The Murphy Report. It's not my fault if you're reading something else into my posts or arguing based on assumptions.
I'm not ruling out the international aspect, i just think we need our own research efforts on this topic.

We know enough about paedophilia to recognise it goes against societal norms. Do you understand what stigma means? It's a marked disapproval of an aspect of a person, often one which is deemed to be against societal norms. Tell me how someone who fantasises about or who has sexual relations with a child doesn't "deserve" to be stigmatised? Or are you actually proposing that wanting to or having sex with children should be made a societal norm?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Read the post. I am saying it is wrong that someone who has paedophilic behavioural or thought patterns only comes to Garda and psychiatric attention when it is too late. I don't think you disagree, I just think you're pointlessly arguing it.

I don't disagree, the difference is that I don't see the fact that paedophiles are not seeking help or requesting psychiatric attention until it is too late as being the fault of society.

metrovelvet

RM -Lay a bit off the stigma? You are starting to sound like an advocate? Would you like them to have their own parade too?

Red_Marauder

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Testimonials have zero relevance to science in all circumstances. Ergo, saying that victim impact has no place in a scientific study of the biology of a person is 100% correct. Take testimonial evidence to court, not to the lab.

Furthermore, RM stated that these testimonials do have relevance when the whole picture is looked at. This rules out the possibility that he has dismissed the victims overall. This leads directly to the conclusions that you, midlandmissus, and meic seem unable to grasp the concept of scientific research (which is based on measurements; you can't measure harm done to children with science), which is what red marauder was largely talking about.

I am afraid Chocolate Sauce has summed up my position more sucinctly than I probably could have; I really think this is a position that would be shared by plenty of people whose only interest on this topic is how to tackle it most effectively.

Fighting_Irish wrote:

by law being attracted to anyone under 18 is pretty much making you a paedophile, when i was 15 i knew plenty of girls in school that were hot, me being 25 now doesn't mean these 15/16 yo girls aren't hot anymore

As donegalfella said, this isn't really the case, and the situation relates to those who have not reached their seventeenth birthdays so not quite all under eighteens.
Of course we do still have problems to face up to with regard to consent between say, seventeen and sixteen year olds.
I think I would be in favour of a situation where a defense of similarity of age within a reasonable threshold can be taken into account for 17 year olds, but I'm still dubious about legal provisions for these people to have sex when they can't legally buy a bottle of beer.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, de-stigmatising paedophilia, normalising it, not warning children about the ulterior motives some people can have would very obviously put others in danger

Maybe we have different ideas about what de-stigmatising it involves. When I say it I mean that if it is established that paedophilic thoughts are due to some biological or inherent psychiatric deviation out of their control, then I would see these people no differently than I would see a woman born with spina bifida or a man born with a severe intellectual disability.

Would I let them babysit my kids if I had kids? No way. I wouldn't ask a guy with a severe intellectual disability to babysit either. It doesn't mean s/he doesn't have the right to basic humanity or respect, or the right to seek help without being stigmatised.

To remind everyone again before the righteous indignation, that particular example is about paedophiles as opposed to active abusers.

common sense would dictate that. You cannot have the risk recognised & such people highlighted and also remove the stigma, it's one or the other.

Do you believe in stigmatisting people with sever psychiatric disturbances who suffer from Pyromania?

Absolutely, encourage away but I think you have to be realistic. There are a not insignificant number of paedophiles who clearly do not want help

In reality, if someone told me they were having paedophilic thoughts, I really wouldn't know where to take them. To the GP? I'd be willing to bet she wouldn't really know either. A&E? The Gardai? A psychiatric clinic?

So often we hear in the defense of abuse cover ups from the past "well, we didn't know what to do about it" or "it wasn't understood back then". the problem is that it still isn't understood, we still don't really know what to do with them. That hasn't changed.

they do not fight whatever urges they have

How do you know this?

metrovelvet wrote:

RM -Lay a bit off the stigma? You are starting to sound like an advocate? Would you like them to have their own parade too?

Compared to everyone else in the discussion all you've contributed to this thread are cheap one-liners as far as I can see, i don't see the point in getting into it with you.
edit: I'm not being offensive, but I just cannot imagine how anyone could possibly get the idea that this thread is about celebrating paedophilia, there's just no making sense of such a bizarre, unsubstantiated notion.

seahorse

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Testimonials have zero relevance to science in all circumstances.

You can embolden your personal opinions all you like - it won't make them any more factual.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This leads directly to the conclusions that you, midlandmissus, and meic seem unable to grasp the concept of scientific research (which is based on measurements; you can't measure harm done to children with science), which is what red marauder was largely talking about.

You've just made it very clear that you are unable to grasp the concept of scientific research. As I have already said, for all anyone knows there may well be distinctive correlations between specific behaviour patterns and genetic and/or neurological make-up. Reports of specific abusive behaviour patterns are going to come from the victims, regardless how passionately you or Red Marauder or anyone else would dearly love to negate their relevance to nothing.

I won't be visiting this thread again. I simply haven’t got the stomach for it.

Turtwig

seahorse wrote: »

Reports of specific abusive behaviour patterns are going to come from the victims

These kind of "reports" carry with them too many kinds of risks. Yes the victims will probably be interviewed but, most probably, every statement they make will be taken with a pinch of salt. Personal Testimonies just aren't that reliable.

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Maybe we have different ideas about what de-stigmatising it involves. When I say it I mean that if it is established that paedophilic thoughts are due to some biological or inherent psychiatric deviation out of their control, then I would see these people no differently than I would see a woman born with spina bifida or a man born with a severe intellectual disability.

The stigmatisation stems from the disapproval of a societal abnormality - there is no societal disapproval with regards to the physical or mental disabilities you mention. They pose no risk to society.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Would I let them babysit my kids if I had kids? No way. I wouldn't ask a guy with a severe intellectual disability to babysit either. It doesn't mean s/he doesn't have the right to basic humanity or respect, or the right to seek help without being stigmatised.

Someone with a severe intellectual disability would make a poor choice for babysitter because they have not the mental capacity to look after a child. Why do think a paedophile is a poor choice for babysitter?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

To remind everyone again before the righteous indignation, that particular example is about paedophiles as opposed to active abusers.

Paedophiles may well become active abusers, at any time, for whatever reason. I don't know why you are in such a rush or so confident that there is a clear line to be drawn. Surely if paedophiles regularly fantasises about child abuse and child rape then inevitably some will want to take that fantasy and make it a reality.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Do you believe in stigmatisting people with sever psychiatric disturbances who suffer from Pyromania?

For the n'th time, it's not about believing in who should or should not be stigmatised - anyone who exhibits behaviours that deviate from the societal norms to the detriment/disapproval of society are stigmatised, by definition.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

In reality, if someone told me they were having paedophilic thoughts, I really wouldn't know where to take them. To the GP? I'd be willing to bet she wouldn't really know either. A&E? The Gardai? A psychiatric clinic? So often we hear in the defense of abuse cover ups from the past "well, we didn't know what to do about it" or "it wasn't understood back then". the problem is that it still isn't understood, we still don't really know what to do with them. That hasn't changed.

Surely one or even all of the above suggestions are preferable to do nothing at all in lieu of specific paedophile in crises walk in centres. Neither systemic cover-ups nor general ignorance equate to a paedophile actively seeking help rather than abusing, btw.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

How do you know this?

The numbers of convicted paedophiles who have been found to work in nurseries, with child groups, in schools or other positions where interaction with and power over children is inevitable would lead me to believe that rather than doing everything in their power to ensure no child would be harmed at their hand, they deliberately put themselves in a position so as to make abusing easier and detection harder. If a paedophile is feeling that they are a risk to children and rather than seek help from whomever they can, be it a GP referral or psychiatric clinic and prefer to keep quiet and set about abusing, then a clear choice has been made.

BobbitoDigital

the best way to deal with a pedophile is to torture and kill them! enough said

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The stigmatisation stems from the disapproval of a societal abnormality - there is no societal disapproval with regards to the physical or mental disabilities you mention. They pose no risk to society.

Of course they can. I mentioned pyromania. You said this:

de-stigmatising paedophilia, normalising it, not warning children about the ulterior motives some people... would very obviously put others in danger - common sense would dictate that.

So do you then think potentially harmful psyciatric disorders should be stigmatised?

Someone with a severe intellectual disability would make a poor choice for babysitter because they have not the mental capacity to look after a child. Why do think a paedophile is a poor choice for babysitter?

What's your point? I wouldn't have a paedophile babysit because a paedophile might abuse. the chances might be 5/1 or they might be 25,000/1 but I wouldnt take that chance with a paedophile.

The chances of an intellectually disabled person allowing my children to come to some harm may have similiar odds, but I still wouldn't allow it.

None of this means they have automatically deserve stigma, or don't deserve the same basic human rights or respect as the rest of us

I don't know why you are in such a rush or so confident that there is a clear line to be drawn. Surely if paedophiles regularly fantasises about child abuse and child rape then inevitably some will want to take that fantasy and make it a reality.

But you just do not know that, you cannot. There has to be a line drawn between paedophilia and active child abuse.

For the n'th time, it's not about believing in who should or should not be stigmatised - anyone who exhibits behaviours that deviate from the societal norms to the detriment/disapproval of society are stigmatised, by definition.

To re-cap, you don't seem to have a problem with this stigma

No, de-stigmatising paedophilia, normalising it, not warning children about the ulterior motives some people can have would very obviously put others in danger - common sense would dictate that.

Surely one or even all of the above suggestions are preferable to do nothing at all in lieu of specific paedophile in crises walk in centres.

Who said do nothing? Are you even reading these posts?

The numbers of convicted paedophiles who have been found to work in nurseries, with child groups, in schools or other positions where interaction with and power over children is inevitable would lead me to believe that rather than doing everything in their power to ensure no child would be harmed at their hand, they deliberately put themselves in a position...

Utter hearsay, no credible statistics, that paragraph has nothing to offer apart from you own pre-formed opinions as far as I can see.

Red_Marauder

seahorse wrote: »

You've just made it very clear that you are unable to grasp the concept of scientific research.

With respect I think it has you who has the problem with understanding the clinical, cellular or genetic research methods we are referring to.

Imagine you are the director of this study at Yale. You are employing post doctoral fellows and graduates in psychiatry, neurophysiology and functional imaging to understand more about the nature of paedophiles. Where do you assess victims in this study?

Victims do have a role to play, but there is no clear, universal role for them in clinical or biological examinations of paedophiles. Most of them would probably prefer not to have a role to play in them anyway.

Diabhal_Glas

Voltwad wrote: »

Now who among us can claim that we haven't had extremely strange dreams or desires that if found out, would make us a social outcast?

Your statement reminds me of a book

My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday

Ickle Magoo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Of course they can. I mentioned pyromania. You said this:


So do you then think potentially harmful psyciatric disorders should be stigmatised?

They ARE stigmatised, by definition of what a stigma is - whether I think that particular disorder should be better understood or shown more sympathy, or whatever, is a different issue.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

What's your point? I wouldn't have a paedophile babysit because a paedophile might abuse. the chances might be 5/1 or they might be 25,000/1 but I wouldnt take that chance with a paedophile.

The chances of an intellectually disabled person allowing my children to come to some harm may have similiar odds, but I still wouldn't allow it.

None of this means they have automatically deserve stigma, or don't deserve the same basic human rights or respect as the rest of us

The point is they are two completely different issues. Having limited capacity to understand what a child wants or needs is not the same, and is not societally considered the same, as a person of average intelligence who wishes to or deliberately harms a child. I can't believe I have to spell that out to you.

People don't automatically deserve respect by virtue of breathing, you are wrong. Human rights everyone deserves - but they are also dependant on the rights afforded to others and may be forfeited.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

But you just do not know that, you cannot. There has to be a line drawn between paedophilia and active child abuse.

You've hit the nail on the head. The fact you cannot know it, is exactly why no line has been drawn, that's the point I'm making.

No, there doesn't. You have said yourself already in this thread that a paedophile can always be considered a risk to children, there is a clear relationship between the two and therefore you cannot assume that some paedophiles will never abuse children any more than you can assume all paedophiles will abuse.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

To re-cap, you don't seem to have a problem with this stigma

I don't, no. I consider paedophiles to be a potential danger to children, full-stop. I think they often show a great deal of cunning and deceit in order to abuse. I see nothing normal in fantasising about or actually abusing children, the stigma paedophilia carries has been well earned.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Who said do nothing? Are you even reading these posts?

You seem to be peddling the idea that the Murphy report and so on, exists because whom a paedophile can go to for help is not obviously clear. I disagree, child abuse exists because people choose to abuse children.

Ditto - you seem to have your heart set on a change of societal opinion on paedophiles & paedophilia and are absolutely resolute that there is no reason why society should consider paedophiles in general with contempt or any degree of negativity. It's a position I just can't begin to fathom, by it's very nature paedophilia is going to be probably the most stigmatised and considered one of the greatest taboos in society.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Utter hearsay, no credible statistics, that paragraph has nothing to offer apart from you own pre-formed opinions as far as I can see.

The same could be said for this entire thread tbh, from beginning to end. Your entire argument regarding de-stigmatising paedophiles and drawing imaginary lines are based on your own pre-formed opinions and you haven't offered one shred of credible anything why either deserve serious consideration. By suggesting my comment is "utter hearsay" you are actually refusing to acknowledge that a proportion of paedophiles actively engage with children with the express intent of abuse having never approached anyone for help, if that is your true position on this matter then I don't see any point in having any further discussion with you.

Turtwig

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

you are actually refusing to acknowledge that a proportion of paedophiles actively engage with children with the express intent of abuse having never approached anyone for help, if that is your true position on this matter then I don't see any point in having any further discussion with you.

How significant is this proportion when compared to actually population pool of people with paedophile tendencies?

moceri

Ex-Priest, Patrick Hughes (82), of Parkdunne Court, Castleknock, pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to four counts of indecent assault against the child, then an altar boy, aged between 11 and 14 years old, on dates between 1979 and 1983.

In mitigating his plea, he told the Judge "I'm NOT a paedophile, I'm Just attracted to Altar Boys" - WTF?http://www.ireland.com/home/Expriest_jailed_abusing_boy/maxi/fast/news/irnews/247603

Must be something about the surplice and the sexy red soutane.

These people should be dragged out into the Streets and Ritually Burned at the Stake as they did to so many un-believers in times past.

Red_Marauder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

whether I think that particular disorder should be better understood or shown more sympathy, or whatever, is a different issue.

I'll ask again, maybe this time you'll answer; In your opinion, should people who suffer with pyromania, be they children or adults, be stigmatised?

If you can answer that question in relation to paedophilia, then it should be the same for pyromania.

The point is they are two completely different issues. Having limited capacity to understand what a child wants or needs is not the same

The net result is the same. I wouldn't leave someone with an intellectual disability with kids any more than I would leave a paedophile with kids. I probably wouldn't even leave someone in a wheelchair in charge of some kids I know.

as a person of average intelligence who wishes to or deliberately harms a child. I can't believe I have to spell that out to you.

You're not spelling out anything, you're mis-reading posts and I'm not sure if it's deliberate.

I wouldn't leave a paedophile in charge of kids because of the threat of abuse, however faint it may be. I think you're a bit hasty in saying they wish to deliberately ahrm the child - there is no reason to believe that they would inevitably, in reality, wish to do this, regardless of their sexual thoughts... Such a person might never actually commit abuse.

People don't automatically deserve respect by virtue of breathing, you are wrong.

I didn't say that, again you are mis-reading posts, deliberately or not.

To be very honest, if someone I knew in my life came forward and told me s/he was afraid of the paedophilic thought patterns that s/he had come to experience, I would have far, far more respect for that individual than some of those expressing extremely short sighted opinions on this very thread. i.e.

Originally posted by BobbitoDigital
the best way to deal with a pedophile is to torture and kill them! enough said

The fact you cannot know it, is exactly why no line has been drawn, that's the point I'm making.

This makes no sense. There is a difference between abuse and paedophilia - that is an established fact. I don't see how you can dispute it.
Just because there is a clear link (obviously) between active abuse and paedophilia does not mean they are the same thing or that all paedophiles abuse children. That is why we need to seperate the two categories.

You have said yourself already in this thread that a paedophile can always be considered a risk to children, there is a clear relationship between the two and therefore you cannot assume that some paedophiles will never abuse children any more than you can assume all paedophiles will abuse.

Nobody said you can assume (or presume for that matter) that paedophiles qon't abuse.

Please use quotes when you're going to make such statements or else don't bother making them - you are deliberately mis-interpreting previous posts.

The point is that you can't presume all paedophiles will abuse, read the posts again; that's what I said.

I see nothing normal in fantasising about or actually abusing children, the stigma paedophilia carries has been well earned.

Nobody is saying it is normal; again - if you think so you are mis-reading.

However, I'm not personally convinced that the stigma for having these thoughts is earned, I think there needs to be more conclusive scientific evidence

You seem to be peddling the idea that the Murphy report and so on, exists because whom a paedophile can go to for help is not obviously clear.

This is getting ridiculous - no I am not. Read the post, please.
I am making the point that 35 years ago people in authority didn't understand paedophilia, and today they use that to explain what were often disgracefully inadequate reponses to it.

In that light, decades later, the impetus is on us to understand paedophilia - we can't allow ignorance to be any excuse for poor responses or inadequate child protection measures.

you [...] are absolutely resolute that there is no reason why society should consider paedophiles in general with contempt or any degree of negativity.

I'm getting really fed up of this. Use a quote to back up exactly what you have just said.

I have always maintained that we need to know more about how paedophilia arises in the individual before we make any unhelpful or rash, uniformed judgements like the above.

Your entire argument regarding de-stigmatising paedophiles and drawing imaginary lines are based on your own pre-formed opinions

What pre formed opinions? Some quotes?

I have talked about the potential of introducing new measures, the potential of clinical examination and psychiatric evaluations; potential benefits do not equate to pre-formed opinions.

You are the one who has closed your mind to this by deciding that paedophiles should be stigmatised without seeming to take into account the ramifications that might be having, or the ethical ramifications of stigmatising what has been reported to be a condition with particularly strong biological and psychiatric undertones.

Again I would refer you to other psychiatric conditions that pose a potential threat to children and adults and ask you to explain your position with regard to those.

By suggesting my comment is "utter hearsay" you are actually refusing to acknowledge that a proportion of paedophiles actively engage with children with the express intent of abuse

That is incredibly backwards logic, read what you just said.

Saying that something is hearsay is not a rejection of the proposition, it is a rejection of the evidence for the proposition, whereby the proposition cannot be established.
You made a generalisation about paedophiles, effectively saying that they are deceitful because a "number" of them work in nurseries.

There's no real logic at work there, as is the case in much of your thought process in my opinion.

Ickle Magoo

Malty_T wrote: »

How significant is this proportion when compared to actually population pool of people with paedophile tendencies?

Well, this is the problem Malty - how does one conduct a true census or study of paedophiles and how can one know which are abusing/have abused and which haven't/aren't with any degree of certainty. There are not really any clear figures available, other than via the judicial system.

As some of the children's charities regularly point out, if you compare the numbers of convictions with the numbers of victims of child sex abuse they deal with then there appears to be a significant discrepancy. In 2009, there were an average of 66 child sex offences recorded each day by police forces across England and Wales - and that's just the cases that are reported, which makes for fairly sobering reading. I don't have any stats for Ireland.

Ugh, I'm going to stop there, this whole topic makes me feel a bit nauseous tbh.

Ickle Magoo

Red Marauder, paedophiles are a potential risk to children's safety, paedophiles that have abused are a potential risk to children. You may see a clear distinction, I don't.

It's someone else's turn to go round in circles with you. :cool:

Turtwig

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, this is the problem Malty - how does one conduct a true census or study of paedophiles and how can one know which are abusing/have abused and which haven't/aren't with any degree of certainty. There are not really any clear figures available, other than via the judicial system.

Why isn't there this degree of certainty? It wouldn't perhaps have anything to do with a stigma society has against them? Just asking.
I know it's a sensitive topic, but you've got to remember that there is a tonne of psychopaths out there, some of them need therapy, others don't. The point I want to make though is that there is a great number more of psychopaths out there that live ordinary everyday lives without doing any harm or breaking any laws. I'd like it to be established if there are paedophiles who face the same struggle.
You're argument so far has mentioned mainly the manipulative ones who abused, but honestly Ickle, do you really think that there'd only be that kind on the spectrum? It seems to me like a narrow viewpoint.

metrovelvet

Psychopaths do cause inevitable harm, even if they are clever enough to stay out of prison. Even if they dont want the hassle of murder, which is a deterrent to the psycho or sociopath, they will leave a trail of pain behind them. They can't help it, they are lost. Some of them develop a moral code so they can get by and even succeed in life and get tutuorials in "how to appear normal"so as to not face total rejection or to facilitate exploitation, but they will always do damage, eventually.

I see the ped as similar. I dont think vows of celibacy will work somehow.

Ickle Magoo

Malty_T wrote: »

Why isn't there this degree of certainty? It wouldn't perhaps have anything to do with a stigma society has against them? Just asking.
I know it's a sensitive topic, but you've got to remember that there is a tonne of psychopaths out there, some of them need therapy, others don't. The point I want to make though is that there is a great number more of psychopaths out there that live ordinary everyday lives without doing any harm or breaking any laws. I'd like it to be established if there are paedophiles who face the same struggle.
You're argument so far has mentioned mainly the manipulative ones who abused, but honestly Ickle, do you really think that there'd only be that kind on the spectrum? It seems to me like a narrow viewpoint.

I would think it has more to do with the illegal nature of the actual act that paedophiles desire and therefore the natural secrecy that surrounds it that hampers reliable testament. How do you possibly de-stigmatise people who fantasise about or do have illegal sexual relations with children? I don't think it's possible to remove the stigma that a strictly legislated social taboo invokes.

I absolutely haven't only mentioned the manipulative ones, nearly every post I've made has made reference to the help and support that paedophiles should have and the agreement that paedophilia should be investigated and studied - it would certainly help "grade" paedophiles and help us understand if it is a personality disorder or an illness or a sexual predilection or even if the "condition" develops or alters. What I was sceptical it would do would be to make a huge difference to general child safety or rates of paedophile abuse, which is what was being claimed.

There is no way of knowing which paedophiles are a danger at the moment, nor who will or will not present a danger in the future - so I don't see that a clear distinction can be drawn for the lifetime of a paedophile. I appreciate the parallels you are trying to draw between psychopathy and paedophilia - I made a similar point earlier - I think the risks from psychopaths which (iirc) make up less than 1% of the population as opposed to the 1 in 200 adults that Scotland Yard has suggested are paedophiles (in the UK at least) would make the latter a far greater risk to society and the general concern of society reflects that. I imagine it is the oft unsavoury psychology and particularly harrowing nature of the criminal behaviour that gives both groups such stigmatism.

trevosaur

Lets not get Paedophilia mixed up with love between an old man and a young woman. This is usually men in their later life, grooming and manipulating a young childs naievty and taking their innocence. It is not a sexual orientation but a perverse fetish for them in taking something what is completely forbidden and knowing they have the power to do so.

Its all about the power factor and macho-sadism. There is no love between the villain and the victim but thats just my opinion guys.

Turtwig

metrovelvet wrote: »

Psychopaths do cause inevitable harm, even if they are clever enough to stay out of prison. Even if they dont want the hassle of murder, which is a deterrent to the psycho or sociopath, they will leave a trail of pain behind them. They can't help it, they are lost. Some of them develop a moral code so they can get by and even succeed in life and get tutuorials in "how to appear normal"so as to not face total rejection or to facilitate exploitation, but they will always do damage, eventually.

They don't always do damage. I don't know where your getting your impression of them from, but it certainly isn't reality.Indeed from what I can find on this topic it seems that our methodology of finding and identifying paedophiles is deeply flawed and archaic. This is not helped by a media that is by and large ignorant of anything science related. The thing that troubles me most about a paedophilia is that we don't even know that much about it to understand if our fears (or in some cases phobias) are rationally justified or not. Definitely though with psychopaths or sociopaths many people have an irrational and ill informed view of what one actually is.

metrovelvet

Malty_T wrote: »

They don't always do damage. I don't know where your getting your impression of them from, but it certainly isn't reality.Indeed from what I can find on this topic it seems that our methodology of finding and identifying paedophiles is deeply flawed and archaic. This is not helped by a media that is by and large ignorant of anything science related. The thing that troubles me most about a paedophilia is that we don't even know that much about it to understand if our fears (or in some cases phobias) are rationally justified or not. Definitely though with psychopaths or sociopaths many people have an irrational and ill informed view of what one actually is.

I'm not going to argue with you but I about this here, but yes they do. I do not have an ill informed view. I have done significant reading on the subject and consulted a specialist about it. And yes, harm is inevitable. It may not end up in bloodshed, but harm nonetheless. It's what happens when empathy is missing.

I dont see how you can have a drive to have sex with kids and also have empathy for them, since its the sickest thing you can do.

WindSock

trevosaur wrote: »

Lets not get Paedophilia mixed up with love between an old man and a young woman. This is usually men in their later life, grooming and manipulating a young childs naievty and taking their innocence. It is not a sexual orientation but a perverse fetish for them in taking something what is completely forbidden and knowing they have the power to do so.

Its all about the power factor and macho-sadism. There is no love between the villain and the victim but thats just my opinion guys.

Men of any age are always going to find a fully formed woman attractive. Is it perverse to do so? Does a young adult woman not have a choice on whom she courts? Very often when you see this group in our society, the man will have a lot of money. You don't see many young women with poor OAPs.

miec

In reality, if someone told me they were having paedophilic thoughts, I really wouldn't know where to take them. To the GP? I'd be willing to bet she wouldn't really know either. A&E? The Gardai? A psychiatric clinic?

In answer to your question: http://www.granadainstitute.ie/index.html

Research on paedophiles in Ireland: http://www.granadainstitute.ie/research.html

There is clearly help in this country for people who have paedophillic tendencies AND for those who act on it. I mentioned this in an earlier post which was conveniantly ignored.

This leads directly to the conclusions that you, midlandmissus, and meic seem unable to grasp the concept of scientific research (which is based on measurements; you can't measure harm done to children with science), which is what red marauder was largely talking about

Chocloate sauce, the thread title asks how should society approach paedophillia, if the thread asked how should the scientific community approach paedophillia, then I would not have contributed to this thread. I have never claimed to grasp scientific research, I'm not a scientist, but I am a member of society. The original post was challenging the way society stigmatises the paedophile and it advocates that one should engage with active abusers to get a better understanding of paedophillia. The thread has morphed into the science debate and as Red Marauder has provided a link into a study conducted in Yale regarding the brain patterns of paedophiles, Red Marauder has covered one point already, which is scientists are already conducting these studies. The thread is asking soceity to approach this in a scientific manner and it is impossible to do so. Ickle Magoo has argued far more expertly and objectively on this subject than I have, and Ickle Magoo's arguement is clear, consice and sticks to the premise of the thread.

What I find incredible though is the level of your ignorance on this topic, you state

you can't measure harm done to children with science

please read this , it is a clinical study conducted by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, namely the SAVI report on sex abuse in Ireland, to say that harm done to children cannot be measured by science is ignoring the fields of medicine, forensic science, psychology, statistics, etc would not be appreciated by the people in these fields. All of whom have contributed to the existing study of sex abuse AND paedophillia.

miec

Just to add one more point, this is copied from a report downloaded from the irish prison's website, specifically Arbor Hill prison where most sex offenders are kept. For more info click here again more help for paedophiles, but this section I had to copy and put below:

15.4.1. As Dr. Kennedy told the Committee during his oral presentation, in response to a question form Deputy Brendan Howlin,

“Even in relation to the addictions that most people would see as a disorder, it is more useful and more successful to think of the approaches to prevent relapse in that area as being almost more like coaching rather than treating.

Medicalising a problem can have a bad effect on the concept of responsibility. People will find that very often if strong arguments have been made that their responsibility was impaired in some way and they were not responsible for what they did, this is very anti-therapeutic. The goal of what are termed ‘treatments’ is to encourage somebody to recognise, develop and strengthen their sense of responsibility.”

This about sums it up for me. I have to say this thread has been deeply upsetting for me, and I am not alone, not because of the content per ce, but the way that content has been bandied about with ignorance and a total disrespect for large sections of society. I am all for free speech and a lack of censorship but at times common sense and a sense of decency needs to be used as well.

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

Originally Posted by Malty_T
They don't always do damage. I don't know where your getting your impression of them from, but it certainly isn't reality.Indeed from what I can find on this topic it seems that our methodology of finding and identifying paedophiles is deeply flawed and archaic. This is not helped by a media that is by and large ignorant of anything science related. The thing that troubles me most about a paedophilia is that we don't even know that much about it to understand if our fears (or in some cases phobias) are rationally justified or not. Definitely though with psychopaths or sociopaths many people have an irrational and ill informed view of what one actually is.

I'm not going to argue with you but I about this here, but yes they do. I do not have an ill informed view. I have done significant reading on the subject and consulted a specialist about it. And yes, harm is inevitable.

Harm is inevitable?

Harm by thought?

I'm not sure what kind of a specialist you say you have consulted, or what reading you've been doing, but no, having bad thoughts does not mean that real harm is inevitable.

ChocolateSauce

seahorse wrote:

You can embolden your personal opinions all you like - it won't make them any more factual.

True. The fact that my statement is factual makes it factual. The fact that you said this also proves my point that you don't understand the meaning of scientific research.

You've just made it very clear that you are unable to grasp the concept of scientific research. As I have already said, for all anyone knows there may well be distinctive correlations between specific behaviour patterns and genetic and/or neurological make-up. Reports of specific abusive behaviour patterns are going to come from the victims, regardless how passionately you or Red Marauder or anyone else would dearly love to negate their relevance to nothing.

I won't be visiting this thread again. I simply haven’t got the stomach for it.

Something as subjective as a testimony has no place in science- they're simply too unreliable.

Now, if you could objectively graph a victim impact statement, or give it some measurable units, I'd be with you.

miec wrote:

Chocloate sauce, the thread title asks how should society approach paedophillia

And the particular point I was making was soley to do with the scientific aspect of the biology of a person. Society should approach pedophillia at least in part with objective knowledge of the matter.

please read this , it is a clinical study conducted by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, namely the SAVI report on sex abuse in Ireland, to say that harm done to children cannot be measured by science is ignoring the fields of medicine, forensic science, psychology, statistics, etc would not be appreciated by the people in these fields. All of whom have contributed to the existing study of sex abuse AND paedophillia.

Science cannot measure love, hate, or any emotion. I think it's safe to say that most of the harm done to children is emotional and psychological- how can these be objectively measured? The simple answer is they can't. (if you disagree, please show me some objective measures) You can do other kinds of studies, like this one, but it is not scientific, it is social. The original point stands: a victim impact statement has no scientific value to someone studying the brain of the offender.

miec

Science cannot measure love, hate, or any emotion. I think it's safe to say that most of the harm done to children is emotional and psychological- how can these be objectively measured? The simple answer is they can't.

That is very true and a good point, I just wish you had said that in the first place, you have made your point a lot clearer to me now, thank you for clarifying it.

ChocolateSauce

miec wrote: »

That is very true and a good point, I just wish you had said that in the first place, you have made your point a lot clearer to me now, thank you for clarifying it.

Maybe next time I'll skip the window dressing?

Turtwig

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Science cannot measure love, hate, or any emotion. I think it's safe to say that most of the harm done to children is emotional and psychological- how can these be objectively measured? The simple answer is they can't.

Ok, this is tricky territory. Science cannot presently measure love but that's mainly down to our ignorance of understanding what love actually is! Emotions such as joy,anger, fear and surprise can be quantified and measured. Yes you can argue that this system is subjective but that's the same as saying that the measure of the metre is subjective. And yes the systems are still a work in progress (like all science) but there is a system whereby one can measure and, believe it or not, quantify emotions. Whether we'll one day be able to tap the mystery that is love remains to be seen, but I'm optimistic.:)