The Paedophile Next Door

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

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

I've no problem with you posting your opinions.

You presented your opinion as an unqualified statement of fact however. Which it clearly isn't.

It's rather unhelpful when opinions are presented as facts, and while you are free to continue doing so, I am also free to continue to back up your assertions.

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

I've no problem with you posting your opinions.

You presented your opinion as an unqualified statement of fact however. Which it clearly isn't.

It's rather unhelpful when opinions are presented as facts, and while you are free to continue doing so, I am also free to continue to back up your assertions.

Which part of my opinions have I stated as fact exactly???

floggg

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 .........

I have a feeling that you are trying to manipulate me into saying something "controversial" - and then try to use that to discredit my position (much like you are doing to nozzferhatoo well reasoned response).

The seemingly obvious point I and others are making is that as long as a persons fantasies remain as only that, and don't cause any harm or distress to the person involved, then a person is entitled to their fantasies and they shouldn't be subject to any moral scrutiny by others.

There are plenty of people with fantasies which I think are disturbing, disgusting or just downright strange - but as long as they aren't trying to live them out, or if they do that everybody involves freely consents and no harm is caused to unwilling parties, it's not for me to judge.

So whether you get off to the idea of having sex with a unicorn or children, as long as it stays in your head than that's your business.

I may find your fantasies morally repugnant but I can't stop you having them. And if jerking off to a mental image gets you through the day, then why would I try to police that (even if I could).

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

Which part of my opinions have I stated as fact exactly???

The part I quoted obviously enough.

You made an unqualified statement that persons were born paedophiles in response to another poster - and so presented it as an established truth.

It's not. You were speculating.

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

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:

If you had a hot daughter, then I think there would be a lot of straight men who might fantasise about having sex with her.

Very few of hem however would actually rape her if given the opportunity.

Edit - hot 17 year old plus daughter, which would have been apparent when read in the context of my previous posts

Grayson

MadDog76 wrote: »

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:

That's not what paedophilia is. it's an attraction to children, not an attraction to raping children.

I'd leave my 17 year old daughter with a straight guy that i knew. I certainly wouldn't leave her with him if he expressed rape fantasies.

Eamondomc

floggg wrote: »

I have a feeling that you are trying to manipulate me into saying something "controversial" - and then try to use that to discredit my position (much like you are doing to nozzferhatoo well reasoned response).

The seemingly obvious point I and others are making is that as long as a persons fantasies remain as only that, and don't cause any harm or distress to the person involved, then a person is entitled to their fantasies and they shouldn't be subject to any moral scrutiny by others.

There are plenty of people with fantasies which I think are disturbing, disgusting or just downright strange - but as long as they aren't trying to live them out, or if they do that everybody involves freely consents and no harm is caused to unwilling parties, it's not for me to judge.

So whether you get off to the idea of having sex with a unicorn or children, as long as it stays in your head than that's your business.

I may find your fantasies morally repugnant but I can't stop you having them. And if jerking off to a mental image gets you through the day, then why would I try to police that (even if I could).

There is no telling what goes on in the mind of people thats for sure but if someone tells me that what is going on in their mind is of having sex with children then I can assure you they wont be alone with my children.

Eamondomc

If you asked people to come forward and tell their friends or family if they have paedophilia tendencies I would guess that very few would come forward. Maybe those that wouldnt would say its because they feel it would alienate them and no one would understand even though they would never act on it. Or maybe its because they think its wrong. But if they never come forward and never act on it we will never know anyway. But I think there will only ever be very few "outs" unless they do actually offend.

ceadaoin.

floggg wrote: »

If you had a hot daughter, then I think there would be a lot of straight men who might fantasise about having sex with her.

Very few of hem however would actually rape her if given the opportunity.

Edit - hot 17 year old plus daughter, which would have been apparent when read in the context of my previous posts

Paedophiles fantasize about and get off on raping young children. It can't be compared to someone fantasizing about consensual sex with an adult.

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

The part I quoted obviously enough.

You made an unqualified statement that persons were born paedophiles in response to another poster - and so presented it as an established truth.

It's not. You were speculating.

It's my opinion that they are .......... or did I miss your post were you proved otherwise???

Or if it's only your opinion that paedophiles are not born paedophiles then you also are speculating ........... do you believe that your opinion is more valid than those of people who disagree with you???

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

I have a feeling that you are trying to manipulate me into saying something "controversial" - and then try to use that to discredit my position (much like you are doing to nozzferhatoo well reasoned response).

The seemingly obvious point I and others are making is that as long as a persons fantasies remain as only that, and don't cause any harm or distress to the person involved, then a person is entitled to their fantasies and they shouldn't be subject to any moral scrutiny by others.

There are plenty of people with fantasies which I think are disturbing, disgusting or just downright strange - but as long as they aren't trying to live them out, or if they do that everybody involves freely consents and no harm is caused to unwilling parties, it's not for me to judge.

So whether you get off to the idea of having sex with a unicorn or children, as long as it stays in your head than that's your business.

I may find your fantasies morally repugnant but I can't stop you having them. And if jerking off to a mental image gets you through the day, then why would I try to police that (even if I could).

That's the part where paedophiles and their fantasies cross a line from "normal" people with kinky fantasies to a very dark part of a diseased mind.

There's a HUGE difference between fantasising about a unicorn and fantasising about children ........... and saying they are the "same" says a lot about you as well as being incredibly disrespectful to the survivors of child sex abuse.

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

If you had a hot daughter, then I think there would be a lot of straight men who might fantasise about having sex with her.

Very few of hem however would actually rape her if given the opportunity.

Edit - hot 17 year old plus daughter, which would have been apparent when read in the context of my previous posts

You have a habit of ignoring certain parts of my posts in order to justify and validate your own posts ........ shall I point out the part you conveniently ignored?

I said if the straight man told me he fantasised about (pay attention now, this is the important part) raping my daughter then I would take issue with that ......... you miss it again??? It was the rape part ....... you get it now?

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

That's the part where paedophiles and their fantasies cross a line from "normal" people with kinky fantasies to a very dark part of a diseased mind.

There's a HUGE difference between fantasising about a unicorn and fantasising about children ........... and saying they are the "same" says a lot about you as well as being incredibly disrespectful to the survivors of child sex abuse.

I'm a survivor of child abuse, sexual and emotional.....................

I think all fantasies are equal, in that they are thoughts, not actions and I just can't judge someone over thoughts, only actions.

Now, if a paedophile said they think child abuse should be ok...then you'd have a point.
but if they say they are attracted to children but know that attraction would be extremely harmful to the child etc.. well, we cant control what we like, only what we do about it.

floggg

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Paedophiles fantasize about and get off on raping young children. It can't be compared to someone fantasizing about consensual sex with an adult.

I don't know if they all fantasise about raping them per se.

Obviously you can't actually have sex with a child without raping them, but I wonder is rape a necessary part of he fantasy for these people.

Isn't it conceivable that they would fantasise about consensual sex with children - even though that's impossible to actually do in real life?

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

It's my opinion that they are .......... or did I miss your post were you proved otherwise???

Or if it's only your opinion that paedophiles are not born paedophiles then you also are speculating ........... do you believe that your opinion is more valid than those of people who disagree with you???

You didn't present it as an opinion. You stated it as a fact.

I just pointed out that you do not know the position either way and therefore your assertion was a speculative opinion. I didn't give any opinion either way.

As I am not in a position to say either way, and not having any insight into the subject, I won't speculate either way.

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

That's the part where paedophiles and their fantasies cross a line from "normal" people with kinky fantasies to a very dark part of a diseased mind.

There's a HUGE difference between fantasising about a unicorn and fantasising about children ........... and saying they are the "same" says a lot about you as well as being incredibly disrespectful to the survivors of child sex abuse.

Sorry, but you clearly are taking the bolded part out of context. The preceding wording refered to people who don't act out their fantasies - which would im sure include many peadophiles.

It's only child abusers who do act it out, and they are competley separate to the point I was making, which is that everybody is entitle to their fantasies even if we don't agree with them.

And thanking you for confirming my suspicions - you were looking for a statement to jump on, and use it as a basis for ad hominems and try and to assume some supposed moral high ground.

I'm slow clapping for you here.

Edit - your insinuations about me and nozzferhatoo show you miss our points entirely. It's not that we are ambivalent to the risk or the welfare of children, it's that we don't see the risk.

You appear to be too hung up on the ode that paedophiles = evil to consider another perspective though, and seem to think anybody who doesn't share your stance favours child abusers over children.

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

You have a habit of ignoring certain parts of my posts in order to justify and validate your own posts ........ shall I point out the part you conveniently ignored?

I said if the straight man told me he fantasised about (pay attention now, this is the important part) raping my daughter then I would take issue with that ......... you miss it again??? It was the rape part ....... you get it now?

See my response to caedoin above. Since it's impossible to have consensual sex with a child, then any attempt to act on those fantasies will be rape as a matter of fact.

But that doesn't mean any person who fantasies about having sex with a child Fantasises about raping them. Fantasies are about suspending reality, so I'm sure they can conceive in their head that it's consensual.

I didn't want to get dragged around in circles trying to argue that distinction, participatory given your refusal to accept the legitimacy of personal fantasies.

I hoped a simple analogy would help you see the point I was trying to make easier.

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

You didn't present it as an opinion. You stated it as a fact.

I just pointed out that you do not know the position either way and therefore your assertion was a speculative opinion. I didn't give any opinion either way.

As I am not in a position to say either way, and not having any insight into the subject, I won't speculate either way.

Because I didn't specifically say "in my opinion ......." you assumed I was saying " ......... is a fact" even though I didn't say that either ........... where's the logic in that???

By the way you haven't specified that your posts are only your opinion .......... am I to assume you are therefore stating them as facts???

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

Sorry, but you clearly are taking the bolded part out of context. The preceding wording refered to people who don't act out their fantasies - which would im sure include many peadophiles.

It's only child abusers who do act it out, and they are competley separate to the point I was making, which is that everybody is entitle to their fantasies even if we don't agree with them.

And thanking you for confirming my suspicions - you were looking for a statement to jump on, and use it as a basis for ad hominems and try and to assume some supposed moral high ground.

I'm slow clapping for you here.

Edit - your insinuations about me and nozzferhatoo show you miss our points entirely. It's not that we are ambivalent to the risk or the welfare of children, it's that we don't see the risk.

You appear to be too hung up on the ode that paedophiles = evil to consider another perspective though, and seem to think anybody who doesn't share your stance favours child abusers over children.

I'm saying that the fact that some people fantasise about having sex, ie raping, children separates them from other "normal", albeit kinky, fantasies ........

Also the fact that you "don't see the risk" when it comes to paedophiles and children shows an ambivalent attitude to whole issue ........

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

See my response to caedoin above. Since it's impossible to have consensual sex with a child, then any attempt to act on those fantasies will be rape as a matter of fact.

But that doesn't mean any person who fantasies about having sex with a child Fantasises about raping them. Fantasies are about suspending reality, so I'm sure they can conceive in their head that it's consensual.

I didn't want to get dragged around in circles trying to argue that distinction, participatory given your refusal to accept the legitimacy of personal fantasies.

I hoped a simple analogy would help you see the point I was trying to make easier.

Again you chose to ignore the part of that post that didn't suit you .......... you were referring to a 17 year old plus daughter so fantasising about having sex with her didn't necessarily mean rape .......... you seem to be hard of understanding so I'll repeat it (again :rolleyes:) ......... I may not like a man fantasising about having sex with my 17 year old daughter but I'd accept it as normal .......... I would not accept as normal a man fantasising about raping my 17 year old daughter ......... you'll eventually get what I'm saying, I have faith in you

Eamondomc

In the 12th century, Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.[3]
"Quote from wikipedia"

We would hope the world has changed. Certainly attitudes have. But what is weird now was once accepted

Eamondomc

Marriage
In most jurisdictions, age of consent laws do not apply if the parties are legally married to each other.
Close-in-age exemptions
Some jurisdictions have laws explicitly allowing sexual acts with minors under the age of consent if their partner is close in age to them. For instance in Canada the age of consent is 16, but there are two close-in-age exemptions: sex with minors aged 14–15 is permitted if the partner is less than five years older, and sex with minors aged 12–13 is permitted if the partner is less than two years older.[26] Other countries state that the sexual conduct with the minor is not to be punished if the partners are of a similar age and development: for instance the age of consent in Finland is 16, but the law states that the act will not be punished if "there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved".[27] Another approach takes the form of a stipulation that sexual intercourse between a minor and an adult is legal under the condition that the latter does not exceed a certain age. For example, the age of consent in the US state of Delaware is 18, but it is allowed for teenagers aged 16 and 17 to engage in sexual intercourse as long as the older partner is younger than 30.[28] In Slovenia, the age of consent in 15, but the law requires that there is "a marked discrepancy between the maturity of the perpetrator and that of the victim".[29]
"Quote from wikipedia"

looking_around

Eamondomc wrote: »

Marriage
In most jurisdictions, age of consent laws do not apply if the parties are legally married to each other.
Close-in-age exemptions
Some jurisdictions have laws explicitly allowing sexual acts with minors under the age of consent if their partner is close in age to them. For instance in Canada the age of consent is 16, but there are two close-in-age exemptions: sex with minors aged 14–15 is permitted if the partner is less than five years older, and sex with minors aged 12–13 is permitted if the partner is less than two years older.[26] Other countries state that the sexual conduct with the minor is not to be punished if the partners are of a similar age and development: for instance the age of consent in Finland is 16, but the law states that the act will not be punished if "there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved".[27] Another approach takes the form of a stipulation that sexual intercourse between a minor and an adult is legal under the condition that the latter does not exceed a certain age. For example, the age of consent in the US state of Delaware is 18, but it is allowed for teenagers aged 16 and 17 to engage in sexual intercourse as long as the older partner is younger than 30.[28] In Slovenia, the age of consent in 15, but the law requires that there is "a marked discrepancy between the maturity of the perpetrator and that of the victim".[29]
"Quote from wikipedia"

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say about this? no one is arguing consent laws, nor that sex with minors is right(for your post above this one).

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm saying that the fact that some people fantasise about having sex, ie raping, children separates them from other "normal", albeit kinky, fantasies ........

Also the fact that you "don't see the risk" when it comes to paedophiles and children shows an ambivalent attitude to whole issue ........

Since you've chosen to ignore the why in my position, theres really no point.

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

Again you chose to ignore the part of that post that didn't suit you .......... you were referring to a 17 year old plus daughter so fantasising about having sex with her didn't necessarily mean rape .......... you seem to be hard of understanding so I'll repeat it (again :rolleyes:) ......... I may not like a man fantasising about having sex with my 17 year old daughter but I'd accept it as normal .......... I would not accept as normal a man fantasising about raping my 17 year old daughter ......... you'll eventually get what I'm saying, I have faith in you

What difference does it make if it "normal" if it stays in their head?

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

What difference does it make if it "normal" if it stays in their head?

The difference is knowing what's in their head .........

Eamondomc

looking_around wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say about this? no one is arguing consent laws, nor that sex with minors is right(for your post above this one).

I m just showing that sex with juveniles is not always viewed as paedophillia. It can happen legally sometimes depending on the laws in various states.
Just everyones views on paedophillia are not the same and both sides can produce valid arguments for or against.

shamrock55

Mr.McLovin wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/i-have-got-a-problem-i-need-help-paedophile-to-out-himself-in-new-channel-4-documentary-30769200.html



Is there anyway of treating these people that works?

Yes its called a bullet!!

looking_around

Eamondomc wrote: »

I m just showing that sex with juveniles is not always viewed as paedophillia. It can happen legally sometimes depending on the laws in various states.
Just everyones views on paedophillia are not the same and both sides can produce valid arguments for or against.

technically, if 'loving' and not for a power trip, it would be.

What you mean to say is that sex with juveniles isn't always seen as child abuse.

Grayson

looking_around wrote: »

technically, if 'loving' and not for a power trip, it would be.

What you mean to say is that sex with juveniles isn't always seen as child abuse.

I think that's what he means but i think he also means that it's not always paedophillia either. Those marriages took place out of necessity/duty/loads a reasons. but an attraction to children probably wasn't one of the reasons.

Really though, it's all down to semantics. I'm pretty certain we generally understand what everyone is saying, it's just phrasing it to make sure there's no misunderstandings.

For example if i say that historically there was no difference between a post pubescent 15 year old girl and an 18 year old girl, I'm not condoning having sex with a 15 year old. I'm just saying that at that point in time there was very little practical difference.

Personally i think a 17 year old limit is both too young and too old. A lot of teenagers could manage to have sex responsibly (with each other). But as a society we grow up a lot later than we used to. An 18 year old now has less responsibility than a 15 year old did 100 years ago, or than a 13 year old 1000 years ago. Age of consent is based partly on the physical maturity of the body but it's also based on the maturity of the person. That is, are they able to handle sex? Whereas puberty is now occurring earlier than ever, teenagers are growing up slower than ever. We have a situation were 14 year olds are physically mature enough to have sex but 18 year olds aren't mentally mature enough.

looking_around

I find by misusing paedophilia, all it does is assert that all paedophiles are child abusers.

If people mean to say child abuse, that's what they should say. Paedophilia used incorrectly for abuse can be seen throughout this thread. I don't think it helps with understand exactly what paedophilia is, nor who an abuser is.
An abuser may not be a paedophile and vice-versa.
____

on the age of consent, that's where a Juliet's law would help. It would make having sex with eachother legal, instead of immediately labelling the boy a sex offender.

Eamondomc

looking_around wrote: »

technically, if 'loving' and not for a power trip, it would be.

What you mean to say is that sex with juveniles isn't always seen as child abuse.

Yes thats it in a nutshell. I am not saying I agree in total with it but can accept it as being legal. Being attracted to children is not necessarily the only reason for paedophillic actions.

Grayson wrote: »

I think that's what he means but i think he also means that it's not always paedophillia either. Those marriages took place out of necessity/duty/loads a reasons. but an attraction to children probably wasn't one of the reasons.

Really though, it's all down to semantics. I'm pretty certain we generally understand what everyone is saying, it's just phrasing it to make sure there's no misunderstandings.

For example if i say that historically there was no difference between a post pubescent 15 year old girl and an 18 year old girl, I'm not condoning having sex with a 15 year old. I'm just saying that at that point in time there was very little practical difference.

Personally i think a 17 year old limit is both too young and too old. A lot of teenagers could manage to have sex responsibly (with each other). But as a society we grow up a lot later than we used to. An 18 year old now has less responsibility than a 15 year old did 100 years ago, or than a 13 year old 1000 years ago. Age of consent is based partly on the physical maturity of the body but it's also based on the maturity of the person. That is, are they able to handle sex? Whereas puberty is now occurring earlier than ever, teenagers are growing up slower than ever. We have a situation were 14 year olds are physically mature enough to have sex but 18 year olds aren't mentally mature enough.

More or less what I was getting at

Shep_Dog

MadDog76 wrote: »

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

Or, it's a behavioural trait developed during childhood/adolescence as a result of maternal emotional abuse.

From what I've read online, I generally find that law-enforcement types generally prefer the 'born with/cannot be cured' argument as it is generally followed by a demand for more police and resources to monitor such people forever.

The idea that paedophila can be attributed to wrong-doing by mothers (perhaps who themselves were abused), which perverted normal emotlonal/sexual development is one which is likely to be difficult for women to accept as its much easier to believe that paedophiles are monstrous random freaks of nature.

looking_around

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Or, it's a behavioural trait developed during childhood/adolescence as a result of maternal emotional abuse.

From what I've read online, I generally find that law-enforcement types generally prefer the 'born with/cannot be cured' argument as it is generally followed by a demand for more police and resources to monitor such people forever.

The idea that paedophila can be attributed to wrong-doing by mothers (perhaps who themselves were abused), which perverted normal emotlonal/sexual development is one which is likely to be difficult for women to accept as its much easier to believe that paedophiles are monstrous random freaks of nature.

You spout this off as fact, with no references links (to studies preferably) to back it up.

lanos

Can I offer a simple solution
Chemical castration for those who seek help.
Physical castration for those who get caught.

Shep_Dog

looking_around wrote: »

You spout this off as fact, with no references links (to studies preferably) to back it up.

Your response appears hostile. Do the reasoned opinions I expressed challenge your beliefs?

The theory of paedophilia being associtaed with emotional abuse such as is manifested in poor parental attachment is well known. Try

(http://) muir.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/10994/33/Thesis_Sarah%20James.pdf?sequence=1

This paper discusses it (and other competing theories) and provides sources.

....Other studies run parallel to these findings, many stating that child molesters are more likely to be insecurely attached than other sexual offenders and non-offenders (e.g.Craissati et al., 2002; Hudson & Ward, 2000). These studies provide support for the theory that a pedophile’s lack of parental warmth or attachment can be an important factor in why they developed pedophilia and why they are unable to form age-appropriate relationships

Put simply, if a child grows up fearful of its mother, what kind of relationship will he develop with adult women (or any adult) in the future?

looking_around

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Your response appears hostile. Do the reasoned opinions I expressed challenge your beliefs?

The theory of paedophilia being associtaed with emotional abuse such as is manifested in poor parental attachment is well known. Try

(http://) muir.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/10994/33/Thesis_Sarah%20James.pdf?sequence=1

This paper discusses it (and other competing theories) and provides sources.



Put simply, if a child grows up fearful of its mother, what kind of relationship will he develop with adult women (or any adult) in the future?

My issue is with you focus on mother and not PARENT.
The study makes claim of "parental attachment". ie either mother or father.
And that, I can see as possibility, but to blame it on one gender? That takes from a fathers role/influence in raising their child.

ceadaoin.

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Your response appears hostile. Do the reasoned opinions I expressed challenge your beliefs?

The theory of paedophilia being associtaed with emotional abuse such as is manifested in poor parental attachment is well known. Try

(http://) muir.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/10994/33/Thesis_Sarah%20James.pdf?sequence=1

This paper discusses it (and other competing theories) and provides sources.



Put simply, if a child grows up fearful of its mother, what kind of relationship will he develop with adult women (or any adult) in the future?

So women are to blame for paedophilia now :rolleyes:

The quote you posted says parental attachment, not specifically maternal btw.

Eamondomc

lanos wrote: »

Can I offer a simple solution
Chemical castration for those who seek help.
Physical castration for those who get caught.

Thats like cutting off hands for theft and the death penalty for murder and then if thats right for paedophiles then it must be right for all sex offenders.
Its not really a solution its sort of like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone. There must be some way found to help those in need of help and rehabilitate those who offend. That may be psychiatric help, I dont know but as a society the problems must be recognised and some way found to humanely deal with these people.

Shep_Dog

looking_around wrote: »

My issue is with you focus on mother and not PARENT.
The study makes claim of "parental attachment". ie either mother or father.
And that, I can see as possibility, but to blame it on one gender? That takes from a fathers role/influence in raising their child.

But what if it is the mother who is at fault?

The mother is primary care-giver and hugely influences the male child's relationship to women in the future.

There are of course many theories about paedophilia and it may well be that there is more than one cause. This, I suggest is one that deserves thought and consideration.

looking_around

Shep_Dog wrote: »

But what if it is the mother who is at fault?

The mother is primary care-giver and hugely influences the male child's relationship to women in the future.

There are of course many theories about paedophilia and it may well be that there is more than one cause. This, I suggest is one that deserves thought and consideration.

I would imagine, that it would depend on the paedophile and his/her childhood.

You can't emphasise the mothers relationship witht heir child, when a father has equal influences.

Infact (and not to take this off topic.) doing so, is like saying 2 gay men can't raise a child because the mother is the "primary care-giver".

It's not true anymore.
In some families the father is the primary care giver, in many, it's shared equally.

So please keep your theory to "parental influence". If a child is neglected, and more so if they feel that neglect, they develop problems.
This isn't a new thing, nor something specific to paedophilia.

Shep_Dog

looking_around wrote: »

You can't emphasise the mothers relationship witht heir child, when a father has equal influences.

And when they don't have equal influences?

looking_around

Shep_Dog wrote: »

And when they don't have equal influences?

Then it's either one parent or the others, and depends on the paedophile in question.

your posts make it sound like it's always the mothers fault.
__
and I'm not feeding you anymore, I think you're baiting.

Shep_Dog

looking_around wrote: »

your posts make it sound like it's always the mothers fault.

Do carefully read what I posted:

I acknowledged that there could be many causes and explored the idea of maternal emotional abuse being one of them. It's certainly not going to be a popular theory.

I think this idea caused you such distress that you were unable read what was written and consider the idea in a rational manner. I would ask you to please try again once you've calmed down.

looking_around

this is what you said "Or, it's a behavioural trait developed during childhood/adolescence as a result of maternal emotional abuse."

When you should have correctly said "Or, it's a behavioural trait developed during childhood/adolescence as a result of parental emotional abuse."

You chose to use mother as bait. and admittedly it worked. but goodbye.

MadDog76

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Or, it's a behavioural trait developed during childhood/adolescence as a result of maternal emotional abuse.

From what I've read online, I generally find that law-enforcement types generally prefer the 'born with/cannot be cured' argument as it is generally followed by a demand for more police and resources to monitor such people forever.

The idea that paedophila can be attributed to wrong-doing by mothers (perhaps who themselves were abused), which perverted normal emotlonal/sexual development is one which is likely to be difficult for women to accept as its much easier to believe that paedophiles are monstrous random freaks of nature.

That's the problem these days ......... nothing's ever black & white, there always has to be a grey area full nonsense ........... it's not the mothers fault, paedophiles are simply born with an incurable genetic disorder.

lanos

lanos wrote: »

Can I offer a simple solution
Chemical castration for those who seek help.
Physical castration for those who get caught.

Eamondomc wrote: »

Thats like cutting off hands for theft and the death penalty for murder and then if thats right for paedophiles then it must be right for all sex offenders.
Its not really a solution its sort of like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone. There must be some way found to help those in need of help and rehabilitate those who offend. That may be psychiatric help, I dont know but as a society the problems must be recognised and some way found to humanely deal with these people.

no thats a flawed analogy
your analogy suggests different levels of punishment
my idea suggested treatment for those that seek help
because chemical castration is not invasive or permanent.

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

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

Again not what I said yet your misrepresentation and ad hominem abound. I said there are people I trust implicitly with my children, and if THOSE particular people turned out to have such an attraction then I would not change mz opinion of the safety of my children. That is not quite the same thing, at all, as you are attempting to paint it to be.

MadDog76 wrote: »

.............. there's no getting around that fact no matter how long you make your posts in order to justify your logic.

And your irrelevant ad hominem commentary continues. Anytime you are ready to address the things I have _actually_ said however, I am here for you. But throw away comments about the length of peoples post is just a way to dodge actually replying to a thing they say.

MadDog76 wrote: »

You have a habit of ignoring certain parts of my posts in order to justify and validate your own posts

Irony. Meter. Exploding. Does. Not compute.

You at this point are the last person to admonish ANYONE on this point.

Or is it one rule for you and one for everyone else? Is that how it works now?

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm saying that the fact that some people fantasise about having sex, ie raping, children separates them from other "normal", albeit kinky, fantasies ........

Some people fantasize about raping others or being themselves raped. Some people imagine killing their boss in obscene and painful ways. Do you obsess over what goes on in peoples head often? I do not. I realize that there is a difference between what happens in peoples head, and what they actually intend on acting out or engaging in. Are you so short of things to worry about that you need to worry about trivialities than will not actually affect the world in any measurable way?

Eamondomc

lanos wrote: »

no thats a flawed analogy
your analogy suggests different levels of punishment
my idea suggested treatment for those that seek help
because chemical castration is not invasive or permanent.

The last line of your original quote is hardly reversible now.

lanos

Eamondomc wrote: »

The last line of your original quote is hardly reversible now.

and i never said it was
but you still provided a rubbish analogy

in fact go back and re-read my original post and then i will permit you to do a face palm