The Paedophile Next Door

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

You can't compare "normal" sexual urges and behaviour with the urges and behaviour (or potential behaviour) of an adult who is sexually attracted to children.

Why not?
Because you think all pedophiles are dangerous and don't know right from wrong?

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

Why not?
Because you think all pedophiles are dangerous and don't know right from wrong?

Ok ........... let's say that most paedophiles are not dangerous at all because they can quite successfully control their urges as a few people on this thread have stated ........... if that is the case those paedophiles don't need any help at all ........... they can babysit your child, teach your child in school, coach your child in football, give your child swimming lessons and then go home and relief themselves by masturbating whilst fantasising about what they would really like to do to/with your child .......... are you comfortable with that situation???

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ok ........... let's say that most paedophiles are not dangerous at all because they can quite successfully control their urges as a few people on this thread have stated ........... if that is the case those paedophiles don't need any help at all ........... they can babysit your child, teach your child in school, coach your child in football, give your child swimming lessons and then go home and relief themselves by masturbating whilst fantasising about what they would really like to do to/with your child .......... are you comfortable with that situation???

That's like asking
"are you comfortable with your best friend masturbating about your sister?"..

Most people wouldn't be...but that doesn't mean your friend is wrong.

How many guys, think of an attractive girl they work with and masturbate?

Also your post assumes pedophiles are attracted to every child. No person is attracted to every other person.

Anyway, this is bordering is "cartoon Porn/fantasies" wrong....no, they're not and should never be.

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

That's like asking
"are you comfortable with your best friend masturbating about your sister?"..

Most people wouldn't be...but that doesn't mean your friend is wrong.

How many guys, think of an attractive girl they work with and masturbate?

Also your post assumes pedophiles are attracted to every child. No person is attracted to every other person.

Anyway, this is bordering is "cartoon Porn/fantasies" wrong....no, they're not and should never be.

So let's just be clear here ......... you are saying that fantasising about having sex with children (any child) whilst masturbating is the same as thinking about an adult woman whilst masturbating and is therefore ........ ok???

That is what you are saying right? I want to make sure I didn't misunderstand you .........

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Not all child abusers are paedophiles .......... but all paedophiles are potential child abusers ....... there's no getting away from that fact.

But this is no more accurate than saying all heterosexual males are potential rapists or anyone with fists has the potential assault or murder. Or anyone with a brain is a potential con artist. Or anyone with a mouth and a car is a potential drink driver.

Merely having an attraction does not mean you will be compelled to ignore and over rule the consent and safety of the object of your desire. Your "potential" says nothing in that it says too much. We are all "potential" something. The point you seem to be trying to make, but are not carrying in any form, is that somehow paedophiles are some how more of a potential abuser than anyone else is a potential anything else. You are really exhibiting nothing more than that "asses against the wall" mentality I discussed in two earlier posts.

MadDog76 wrote: »

I have many friends I trust implicitly and they many flaws which don't effect that trust ............ however being a paedophile is not something I could say wouldn't alter my opinion of them.

I imagine so because, as I said above, you are attaching an inordinate and unwarranted amount of "potential" to this one thing over any other. For reasons you not only have not laid out, but have not even begun to try.

MadDog76 wrote: »

You can't compare "normal" sexual urges and behaviour with the urges and behaviour (or potential behaviour) of an adult who is sexually attracted to children.

Except you can. And the only reason you have offered to suggest we can not, is your say so.

MadDog76 wrote: »

if that is the case those paedophiles don't need any help at all ...........

What an awful view point that I can do nothing but be grateful I do not share. Unless someone is potentially harmful or damaging to us, they do not require or deserve our help?

Do you not think their own well being is reason enough, or has your hatred of paedophiles precluded you from the least piece of human decency and empathy? Do you not think their own disgust at their own feelings...... and the misery, self loathing and alienation this brings them.......as exhibited for example by the self confessed Paedophile in the documentary that started the thread..... is not reason enough for them to deserve and require our help?

No, you would just have them rot in their misery unless they were a potential harm and therefore warrant us deigning to notice them? Is that what we are now? What Hamlet said with irony I could say with disgust. What a piece of work is man.

MadDog76 wrote: »

So let's just be clear here ......... you are saying that fantasising about having sex with children whilst masturbating is the same as thinking about an adult woman whilst masturbating and is therefore ........ ok???

It is not just ok, it is entirely irrelevant. We do not convict or judge people for thought crime. Many of us do things in our imagination that we would never enact or do in real life. If someone is masturbating to thoughts of children, your mother.... or entertaining fantasies of killing their annoying boss slowly and painfully...... so what? Most people entertaining those thoughts have absolutely no actual inclination to implement ANY of it. What care you what goes on in peoples heads?

What goes on in our mind is irrelevant and no ones business. If someone is right this second masturbating to the thought of raping either me or my partner.... so the hell what? What do I care? Its their imagination. Its their mind. I could not give a crap. Do you sit around obsessing about such things?

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

So let's just be clear here ......... you are saying that fantasising about having sex with children (any child) whilst masturbating is the same as thinking about an adult woman whilst masturbating and is therefore ........ ok???

That is what you are saying right? I want to make sure I didn't misunderstand you .........

I'm saying that fantasizing about a child, isn't a crime. It harms nobody.
Same way fantasizing about a woman doesn't harm the woman. It's a fantasy. Thoughts aren't a crime, nor should they be. Simply just because someones fetish makes us uncomfortable does not mean that fetish is automatically wrong/dangerous. How they enjoy the fetish could be, the fetish itself isn't.

Now if you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality...yeah that would be a problem

Eamondomc

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Merely having an attraction does not mean you will be compelled to ignore and over rule the consent and safety of the object of your desire. Your "potential" says nothing in that it says too much. We are all "potential" something. The point you seem to be trying to make, but are not carrying in any form, is that somehow paedophiles are some how more of a potential abuser than anyone else is a potential anything else. You are really exhibiting nothing more than that "asses against the wall" mentality I discussed in two earlier posts.

I said this before and I respect your opinion (but its not the general consensus I imagine) Can you tell me one organization that has a responsibility for the welfare of children that would allow a person who has publicly stated that they are sexually aroused by or have sexual fantasies involving children that would allow them either in paid employment or voluntarily to work alone with said children?

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But this is no more accurate than saying all heterosexual males are potential rapists or anyone with fists has the potential assault or murder. Or anyone with a brain is a potential con artist. Or anyone with a mouth and a car is a potential drink driver.

Merely having an attraction does not mean you will be compelled to ignore and over rule the consent and safety of the object of your desire. Your "potential" says nothing in that it says too much. We are all "potential" something. The point you seem to be trying to make, but are not carrying in any form, is that somehow paedophiles are some how more of a potential abuser than anyone else is a potential anything else. You are really exhibiting nothing more than that "asses against the wall" mentality I discussed in two earlier posts.



I imagine so because, as I said above, you are attaching an inordinate and unwarranted amount of "potential" to this one thing over any other. For reasons you not only have not laid out, but have not even begun to try.



Except you can. And the only reason you have offered to suggest we can not, is your say so.



What an awful view point that I can do nothing but be grateful I do not share. Unless someone is potentially harmful or damaging to us, they do not require or deserve our help?

Do you not think their own well being is reason enough, or has your hatred of paedophiles precluded you from the least piece of human decency and empathy? Do you not think their own disgust at their own feelings...... and the misery, self loathing and alienation this brings them.......as exhibited for example by the self confessed Paedophile in the documentary that started the thread..... is not reason enough for them to deserve and require our help?

No, you would just have them rot in their misery unless they were a potential harm and therefore warrant us deigning to notice them? Is that what we are now? What Hamlet said with irony I could say with disgust. What a piece of work is man.



It is not just ok, it is entirely irrelevant. We do not convict or judge people for thought crime. Many of us do things in our imagination that we would never enact or do in real life. If someone is masturbating to thoughts of children, your mother.... or entertaining fantasies of killing their annoying boss slowly and painfully...... so what? Most people entertaining those thoughts have absolutely no actual inclination to implement ANY of it. What care you what goes on in peoples heads?

What goes on in our mind is irrelevant and no ones business. If someone is right this second masturbating to the thought of raping either me or my partner.... so the hell what? What do I care? Its their imagination. Its their mind. I could not give a crap. Do you sit around obsessing about such things?

I'm sorry but I cannot take the opinion's of a man who would allow his children to be left alone with a paedophile because "he's a good mate and I trust him" seriously ............ as I've said earlier we are (thankfully) miles apart in our opinions regarding this issue.

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

I'm saying that fantasizing about a child, isn't a crime. It harms nobody.
Same way fantasizing about a woman doesn't harm the woman. It's a fantasy. Thoughts aren't a crime, nor should they be. Simply just because someones fetish makes us uncomfortable does not mean that fetish is automatically wrong/dangerous. How they enjoy the fetish could be, the fetish itself isn't.

Now if you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality...yeah that would be a problem

Raping small children (fantasy or otherwise) is not a fetish ........ how flippant and casual you are is appalling

Piliger

Eamondomc wrote: »

I said this before and I respect your opinion (but its not the general consensus I imagine) Can you tell me one organization that has a responsibility for the welfare of children that would allow a person who has publicly stated that they are sexually aroused by or have sexual fantasies involving children that would allow them either in paid employment or voluntarily to work alone with said children?

What has that to do with the issue ?

Piliger

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I cannot take the opinion's of a man who would allow his children to be left alone with a paedophile because "he's a good mate and I trust him" seriously ............ as I've said earlier we are (thankfully) miles apart in our opinions regarding this issue.

Yes you've said it more than once. The comical thing about that is that the chance of a person with those kinds of feelings ever saying it to you, or anyone else, is a zillion to one. Also not being able to relate to someone who you disagree with isn't really all that interesting.

Eamondomc

Piliger wrote: »

What has that to do with the issue ?

There was a post that said he would have no problem leaving kids alone with a known trusted paedophile. Thats just a question I asked to clarify my mind on his post.

MadDog76

Piliger wrote: »

Yes you've said it more than once. The comical thing about that is that the chance of a person with those kinds of feelings ever saying it to you, or anyone else, is a zillion to one. Also not being able to relate to someone who you disagree with isn't really all that interesting.

The issue here is someone knowingly putting their child in harm's way .........

By the way I'm not here to entertain you or to seek your permission to post my opinions ......... just so we understand each other

Eamondomc

Piliger wrote: »

Yes you've said it more than once. The comical thing about that is that the chance of a person with those kinds of feelings ever saying it to you, or anyone else, is a zillion to one. Also not being able to relate to someone who you disagree with isn't really all that interesting.

Yes you are right small chance of the person coming forward publicly.
You are not forced to read any posts and neither are you forced to respond to them and the second part of your post has nothing to do with the issue.

Piliger

Eamondomc wrote: »

There was a post that said he would have no problem leaving kids alone with a known trusted paedophile. Thats just a question I asked to clarify my mind on his post.

I fail to grasp how an 'organisation's' policies would shed light on that ... no offence or attack intended. Organisations have legal commitments and risks and always take the extreme risk free option where possible. Not necessarily an instructive guide to how people should live their lives.

Piliger

MadDog76 wrote: »

The issue here is someone knowingly putting their child in harm's way .........

By the way I'm not here to entertain you or to seek your permission to post my opinions ......... just so we understand each other

People 'knowingly' put their child in harms way every day, driving in cars with no safety belts on the kids, driving recklessly, allowing them to go to the shops across dangerous roads. Picking on one sort of risk over another should be based on factual risk assessment .... but how many people never bother to stop and think ?

MadDog76

Piliger wrote: »

I fail to grasp how an 'organisation's' policies would shed light on that ... no offence or attack intended. Organisations have legal commitments and risks and always take the extreme risk free option where possible. Not necessarily an instructive guide to how people should live their lives.

Do you not think a parent should take the "extreme risk free option" when it comes to their own children's safety???

Eamondomc

Piliger wrote: »

I fail to grasp how an 'organisation's' policies would shed light on that ... no offence or attack intended. Organisations have legal commitments and risks and always take the extreme risk free option where possible. Not necessarily an instructive guide to how people should live their lives.

Agreed. But with children in my care I would act the same.

MadDog76

Piliger wrote: »

People 'knowingly' put their child in harms way every day, driving in cars with no safety belts on the kids, driving recklessly, allowing them to go to the shops across dangerous roads. Picking on one sort of risk over another should be based on factual risk assessment .... but how many people never bother to stop and think ?

And I would disagree with those parents too ..........

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

And I would disagree with those parents too ..........

The real question is though, how at risk would a child be with a peadophile?
The only stats we have to go on, are the offenders...we have no idea of the number of non offenders.

They could be quite high, making the risk of a known paedophile(ie a person you know REALLY well, and would trust equally to any family/friend), negligible.


We wont know until we make it ok for someone to be open and honest without assuming they are dangerous, immoral people.

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

The real question is though, how at risk would a child be with a peadophile?
The only stats we have to go on, are the offenders...we have no idea of the number of non offenders.

They could be quite high, making the risk of a known paedophile(ie a person you know REALLY well, and would trust equally to any family/friend), negligible.


We wont know until we make it ok for someone to be open and honest without assuming they are dangerous, immoral people.

Is that a real question???

I'll humour you and answer it anyway ........... I wouldn't experiment with my children's safety by leaving them with a "known trusted" paedophile in the hope that the risk is "negligible" :rolleyes:

Piliger

MadDog76 wrote: »

And I would disagree with those parents too ..........

I'm afraid you would be unable to be a successful parent in that case. It is impossible, totally impossible, to bring a kid up properly without taking risks and allowing them to take risks. The theory may be to limit those risks but the reality is that that is simply impossible unless you wrap them in a safety net and turn them into freaks.

MadDog76

Piliger wrote: »

I'm afraid you would be unable to be a successful parent in that case. It is impossible, totally impossible, to bring a kid up properly without taking risks and allowing them to take risks. The theory may be to limit those risks but the reality is that that is simply impossible unless you wrap them in a safety net and turn them into freaks.

I am a successful parent actually ............. I've just decided not to let them go bungee jumping, experiment with cocaine or hang out with known paedophiles .......... you know, the basic parenting skills :rolleyes:

I stick to taking the risk of them falling off their bikes while teaching them to cycle ........

Piliger

MadDog76 wrote: »

I am a successful parent actually ............. I've just decided not to let them go bungee jumping, experiment with cocaine or hang out with known paedophiles .......... you know, the basic parenting skills :rolleyes:

I stick to taking the risk of them falling off their bikes while teaching them to cycle ........

Fair enough - but in that case, and again with respect, I don't think you realise the sheer level risks that they experience in their every day. I've got a boy of 22 who I was at home with for most of this pre-teen years.

MadDog76

Piliger wrote: »

Fair enough - but in that case, and again with respect, I don't think you realise the sheer level risks that they experience in their every day. I've got a boy of 22 who I was at home with for most of this pre-teen years.

And exactly what risks did you allow him to partake in while you stood idly by at ages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc???

sbsquarepants

Grayson wrote: »

rapists don't have a type.

think of it this way

hetro does not equal rapist
paedo does not equal abuser.

Like i said above a lot of abusers are straight males. It actually has nothing to do with sexual attraction. Likewise rapists get off on the violence. It's not like they have a particular type.

That's what rapists and abusers have in common, they are actually more into the violent acts than they are attracted to the victims.

I have no idea how likely a paedophile is to be an abuser. I think most people don't. The simple fact is that if someone was attracted to children, they wouldn't tell anyone. therefore we have no way of working out what percentage of paedophiles are abusers.
It could actually be the same percentage of paedophiles abuse children as the percentage of men who assault women.

Of course rapists have a type!
The majority of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, often by someone who was inappropriately (for whatever reason) attracted to them, or someone where the attraction was simply unrequited. Many are just opportunistic predatory dirt bags taking advantage of whatever situation to pounce. Strangers jumping from bushes are actually very much the exception to the rule.
But I would say very rarely, and I'm talking off the top of my head (some might say out of my arse!) but very rarely is there no actual attraction on the part of the rapist.
I have real trouble buying into the sexual crime is not about sex mantra - if it's not about sex what the hell is it about? If it was about power over women you'd have people forcing women to do all sorts of things, forcing them into sex to me implies it was always about the sex. If someone forced some woman to wash their car or paint their house or something like that I'd accept it was about power - but not if they force them to have sex.

sbsquarepants

MadDog76 wrote: »

Is that a real question???

I'll humour you and answer it anyway ........... I wouldn't experiment with my children's safety by leaving them with a "known trusted" paedophile in the hope that the risk is "negligible" :rolleyes:

I have to say, I'm with you on this one!
I have only a handful of people I'd leave my kids with as it is, all of them I trust completely, if one of them confessed to be being a paedophile they'd be off the list immediately. In fact I don't honestly think I could ever have anything to do with them again, I just wouldn't be able to view them in the same way, and I certainly would never, ever trust them.
That's very probably unfair - but I don't care, no matter how small the risk I just wouldn't be willing to take it.

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

Is that a real question???

I'll humour you and answer it anyway ........... I wouldn't experiment with my children's safety by leaving them with a "known trusted" paedophile in the hope that the risk is "negligible" :rolleyes:

the risk may not be any higher than leaving your children with a non-confessed trusted person.
we actually don't know.
particularly because people think the attraction is an uncontrollable urge. or that all paedophiles are automatically dangerous.
if your best.friend said they.fancied your sister/mother would you cut off all ties with them? would you assume that your sister/mother are in danger if left with your bestfriend?

don't get me wrong, I understand the fear with paedophilia, but I just.can't base the entire demographic on.convicts. same way I don't judge all men by the rapists. and I think it's wrong to assume that most would be dangerous. rapists are a very.small minority compared to all men. I think using that logic, dangerous paedophiles are a small minority to all. I could be wrong of course, but it's not yet open enough to be adequately studied.

Grayson

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Of course rapists have a type!
The majority of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, often by someone who was inappropriately (for whatever reason) attracted to them, or someone where the attraction was simply unrequited. Many are just opportunistic predatory dirt bags taking advantage of whatever situation to pounce. Strangers jumping from bushes are actually very much the exception to the rule.
But I would say very rarely, and I'm talking off the top of my head (some might say out of my arse!) but very rarely is there no actual attraction on the part of the rapist.
I have real trouble buying into the sexual crime is not about sex mantra - if it's not about sex what the hell is it about? If it was about power over women you'd have people forcing women to do all sorts of things, forcing them into sex to me implies it was always about the sex. If someone forced some woman to wash their car or paint their house or something like that I'd accept it was about power - but not if they force them to have sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_violence

I never said all sexual assaults were about violence but most are. The violence is an integral part of the act and is very much a part of the enjoyment for the attackers.
see, it doesn't matter what you buy into, it's something that has been studied and noted on many occasions. Like global warming or evolution, it's a fact.

What is debatable is why these attackers are like this. It notes in the wiki page that 1 in 5 children who are abused will become abusers. Those abusers will most likely carry on the same type of abuse even though they might not be sexually attracted to children. Why this occurs needs study.

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

Paedophilia is not a sexual preference ......... it's something you are born with and cannot be changed ....... just like homosexuality.

Again, anything to back up this claim?

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't but quite franky I don't believe we can say definitely either way.

So you should avoid presenting speculative assumptions as undisputed fact.

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

Not all child abusers are paedophiles .......... but all paedophiles are potential child abusers ....... there's no getting away from that fact.

Every man and woman is a potential child abuser. They are also potential rapists (adult victims), murderers, things etc.

looking_around

floggg wrote: »

Again, anything to back up this claim?

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't but quite franky I don't believe we can say definitely either way.

So you should avoid presenting speculative assumptions as undisputed fact.

if you read the thread, there are references/ links to this.

or you could google the definition of sexual orientation, compare that to paraphilia/fetish.. and see for yourself which one explains paedophiles best.

I'll make it simple, sexual orientation by definition has nothing to do with age, ONLY gender.

edit: nevermind, I misread the post you quoted thereby misreading yours. //I don't know if a fetish can be changed. though, I don't believe people are born with them, but develop them, probably at a very early age.

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

So let's just be clear here ......... you are saying that fantasising about having sex with children (any child) whilst masturbating is the same as thinking about an adult woman whilst masturbating and is therefore ........ ok???

That is what you are saying right? I want to make sure I didn't misunderstand you .........

Is it wrong for a person with a rape fantasy to get off on the idea of it, even if they will never ever act on it? Or of me to get off on fantasising about some straight guys even though they would never consent to what I would like to do to them. Or for somebody to get off in doing it in public, even if they actually just confine themselves to the privacy of their bedroom.

Heck, what about a nervous public speaker who pictures his audience naked.

We might not like or agree with other people's fantasies, but as long as they separate fantasy from reality and keep things only in their imagination they have every right to enjoy them.

Every person has the right to the privacy of their own thoughts. If you start judging people on what goes on in their heads, we will all be found wanting for various reasons.

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

The issue here is someone knowingly putting their child in harm's way .........

By the way I'm not here to entertain you or to seek your permission to post my opinions ......... just so we understand each other

You put your child in harms way every time you leave them with a stranger. As we know from all the abuse cases, you really can't trust anybody as much as you could.

If you leave your 17 year old daughter with a straight man for the weekend, are you not putting her at equal risk of rape?

floggg

Piliger wrote: »

I'm afraid you would be unable to be a successful parent in that case. It is impossible, totally impossible, to bring a kid up properly without taking risks and allowing them to take risks. The theory may be to limit those risks but the reality is that that is simply impossible unless you wrap them in a safety net and turn them into freaks.

You then risk extreme social isolation resulting in depression and possibly suicide, as well as preventing them building up a proper inmune system in their youth meaning they are knocked out by their first mild flu.

sbsquarepants

Grayson wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_violence

I never said all sexual assaults were about violence but most are. The violence is an integral part of the act and is very much a part of the enjoyment for the attackers.
see, it doesn't matter what you buy into, it's something that has been studied and noted on many occasions. Like global warming or evolution, it's a fact.

What is debatable is why these attackers are like this. It notes in the wiki page that 1 in 5 children who are abused will become abusers. Those abusers will most likely carry on the same type of abuse even though they might not be sexually attracted to children. Why this occurs needs study.

I don't mean to sound condescending but attacks that are about violence are called beatings. Rapes are about sex, there may be varying amounts of violence involved also but at it's core it is a sexual act.

Most people I'd say could quite easily conceive of a situation where they may hit someone else or at the very least want to hit them. In fact I'd say everyone can. I doubt very many even under any bizzare set of ridiculously unlikely circumstances can conceive of raping someone - because of the sexual aspect to it. It is not just about violence.

Grayson

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't mean to sound condescending but attacks that are about violence are called beatings. Rapes are about sex, there may be varying amounts of violence involved also but at it's core it is a sexual act.

Most people I'd say could quite easily conceive of a situation where they may hit someone else or at the very least want to hit them. In fact I'd say everyone can. I doubt very many even under any bizzare set of ridiculously unlikely circumstances can conceive of raping someone - because of the sexual aspect to it. It is not just about violence.

Consensual sex is about sex. Or are you saying that rape is equated to consensual sex?

Seriously, read the articles. Google it. rape is about power, violence, dominance and/or humiliation. It's not about just ejaculating. Obviously there's an element of sex, it's a sexual assault. But sex is not the primary motivation.

If you google motivation of rapists, that's pretty much what comes up

https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=motivations%20of%20rapists

nozzferrahhtoo

Eamondomc wrote: »

I said this before and I respect your opinion (but its not the general consensus I imagine) Can you tell me

I answered this, At some length, the last time you asked it. I am not sure why you might expect my answer to be any different today for you having repeated the question.

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I cannot take the opinion's of a man who would allow his children to be left alone with a paedophile because "he's a good mate and I trust him" seriously

In other words you are going to ignore, dodge and skip me ENTIRE post behind a retreat covered by an ad hominem comment about me. Not to mention an ad honimen that is a massive misrepresentation and over simplification of the position I ACTUALLY expressed on the matter. Nice.

Given some of the opinions of yours I just replied to, you can rest assured I am as thankful as you that our opinions on this matter do not align. And if misrepresentation and ad hominem is the method of choice you use, I am glad we are not aligned in this either.

MadDog76 wrote: »

The issue here is someone knowingly putting their child in harm's way .........

But no one has suggested doing any such thing. Just more of your misrepresentations.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Do you not think a parent should take the "extreme risk free option" when it comes to their own children's safety???

Yes. Such as NEVER leaving your child with someone you do not trust with them entirely. Which is something I have never done, never would do, and have not once on this thread suggested I might do.

MadDog76 wrote: »

By the way I'm not here to entertain you

Or.... it seems... to actually reply to the substance of long posts without simply dodging them with misrepresentations and ad hominem. One wonders therefore what you _are_ here for. Soapboxing I imagine.

sbsquarepants

I'm well aware of the thinking. I just don't accept it. If it was about power and control and violence and so on it wouldn't necessarily involve sex, what separates rapes from assaults is that rapes are about sex.

Grayson

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm well aware of the thinking. I just don't accept it. If it was about power and control and violence and so on it wouldn't necessarily involve sex, what separates rapes from assaults is that rapes are about sex.

And what separates it from sex is that it's about violence.

I'm going to try and bring it back around to the OP. The point was that for a very large number of abusers, sex and attraction has very little to do with it. Like the wiki page said, one in 5 victims become abusers.

nozzferrahhtoo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If it was about power and control and violence and so on it wouldn't necessarily involve sex, what separates rapes from assaults is that rapes are about sex.

Likely about both. In different measures for different perpetrators. It is about violence for sure. Sexual violence. But still a kind of violence.

The two are not actually that separate at the level of the brain as it happens. Neuroscientist VS Ramachandran theorizes that the reason we use so much sexual imagery across all human languages in our speech about violence is that the "centers" for each in the brain are close neighbors. And quite a lot of things in humans are explains by neighboring brain areas and "spill" activity between them. (synaesthesia springs to mind). Links between sex and dominance throughout the animal kingdom do not really need much expansion from me either, we all know them.

But no one says it is "necessarily about sex" as you put it. That is just one of the ways a disposition towards power and control and violence manifests. In other people it manifests in other ways. Domestic Violence. Assault. Psychological abuse. How it presents is different between people, but the underlying cause can be the same. And rape and sexual violence is one of them.

So for some it is going to be, like you say, "about sex" but for others the sex is incidental to what it actually represents.

Or, all of that in short. "Its complicated".

sbsquarepants

Grayson wrote: »

And what separates it from sex is that it's about violence.

I'm going to try and bring it back around to the OP. The point was that for a very large number of abusers, sex and attraction has very little to do with it. Like the wiki page said, one in 5 victims become abusers.

I think we're largely arguing the same point to be honest.

I don't see how the perpetrator being a victim themselves previously says anything one way or the other about it being about sex or attraction however?

floggg

Grayson wrote: »

Consensual sex is about sex. Or are you saying that rape is equated to consensual sex?

Seriously, read the articles. Google it. rape is about power, violence, dominance and/or humiliation. It's not about just ejaculating. Obviously there's an element of sex, it's a sexual assault. But sex is not the primary motivation.

If you google motivation of rapists, that's pretty much what comes up

https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=motivations%20of%20rapists

Agreed. Just even step back and think about it for a second - for your average man would you be even able to get it up and finish if your "partner" was struggling, resisting and crying during the act. I can't think of anything less sexy.


If you're able to find pleasure in all that, and find it somehow preferable to a nice relaxing ****, then clearly it's not just that you wanted to get off and there is something wrong with you.

floggg

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm well aware of the thinking. I just don't accept it. If it was about power and control and violence and so on it wouldn't necessarily involve sex, what separates rapes from assaults is that rapes are about sex.

The power and control elements of rape aren't physical. They are mental.

It's not just about over powering them, but taking something from them - their control of their bodies, consent, sense of self. It's about making them feel that they are powerless.

Sex should be the most intimate and personal human experience, but a rapist destroys that. It scars you for life in a way assault or other violent acts never will.

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

the risk may not be any higher than leaving your children with a non-confessed trusted person.
we actually don't know.
particularly because people think the attraction is an uncontrollable urge. or that all paedophiles are automatically dangerous.
if your best.friend said they.fancied your sister/mother would you cut off all ties with them? would you assume that your sister/mother are in danger if left with your bestfriend?

don't get me wrong, I understand the fear with paedophilia, but I just.can't base the entire demographic on.convicts. same way I don't judge all men by the rapists. and I think it's wrong to assume that most would be dangerous. rapists are a very.small minority compared to all men. I think using that logic, dangerous paedophiles are a small minority to all. I could be wrong of course, but it's not yet open enough to be adequately studied.

Here's the thing, when you leave your child in the care of someone you trust you know you are taking a risk and you balance that risk with what you know about the individual ........... if they tell you they are a paedophile then you know that the risk has gone way up so I'd no longer trust them with my children.

If my best friend fancied my mother or sister I'd probably laugh it off with a "too much information" comment ........... if he told me he had "taboo" sexual thoughts about my mother or sister then I would certainly take issue with that!!

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

Again, anything to back up this claim?

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't but quite franky I don't believe we can say definitely either way.

So you should avoid presenting speculative assumptions as undisputed fact.

Eh ............ is Boards not based on people offering their opinion ............ is that not what you have been doing on here???

I think I'll feel free to most my opinions if I so wish without approval from you

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

Is it wrong for a person with a rape fantasy to get off on the idea of it, even if they will never ever act on it? Or of me to get off on fantasising about some straight guys even though they would never consent to what I would like to do to them. Or for somebody to get off in doing it in public, even if they actually just confine themselves to the privacy of their bedroom.

Heck, what about a nervous public speaker who pictures his audience naked.

We might not like or agree with other people's fantasies, but as long as they separate fantasy from reality and keep things only in their imagination they have every right to enjoy them.

Every person has the right to the privacy of their own thoughts. If you start judging people on what goes on in their heads, we will all be found wanting for various reasons.

So let's just be clear here with you also ......... you too are saying that fantasising about having sex with children (any child) whilst masturbating is the same as thinking about an adults of either genders in various scenarios whilst masturbating and is therefore ........ ok???

That is what you are also saying right? I want to make sure I don't misunderstand you .........

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

So let's just be clear here with you also ......... you too are saying that fantasising about having sex with children (any child) whilst masturbating is the same as thinking about an adults of either genders in various scenarios whilst masturbating and is therefore ........ ok???

That is what you are also saying right? I want to make sure I don't misunderstand you .........

They aren't committing a crime, just because they think something. Important to remember that.

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

You put your child in harms way every time you leave them with a stranger. As we know from all the abuse cases, you really can't trust anybody as much as you could.

If you leave your 17 year old daughter with a straight man for the weekend, are you not putting her at equal risk of rape?

Yes I am ............. even more so if said straight man tells me in advance that he has fantasised about raping my daughter ............. so obviously I wouldn't do it :rolleyes:

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I answered this, At some length, the last time you asked it. I am not sure why you might expect my answer to be any different today for you having repeated the question.



In other words you are going to ignore, dodge and skip me ENTIRE post behind a retreat covered by an ad hominem comment about me. Not to mention an ad honimen that is a massive misrepresentation and over simplification of the position I ACTUALLY expressed on the matter. Nice.

Given some of the opinions of yours I just replied to, you can rest assured I am as thankful as you that our opinions on this matter do not align. And if misrepresentation and ad hominem is the method of choice you use, I am glad we are not aligned in this either.



But no one has suggested doing any such thing. Just more of your misrepresentations.



Yes. Such as NEVER leaving your child with someone you do not trust with them entirely. Which is something I have never done, never would do, and have not once on this thread suggested I might do.



Or.... it seems... to actually reply to the substance of long posts without simply dodging them with misrepresentations and ad hominem. One wonders therefore what you _are_ here for. Soapboxing I imagine.

The problem I have with you and your posts (yes I've read them) is that you would trust someone with your children who has confessed to you that they are a paedophile .............. there's no getting around that fact no matter how long you make your posts in order to justify your logic.