Brain changes in offending pedophiles uncovered
New research reveals that certain alterations in the brain may be present in pedophiles, with differences between hands-on offenders and those who have not sexually offended against children.
More…
Ive often thought that pedophilia was chemical related.
>Ive often thought that pedophilia was chemical related.
so continues the neuro-chem’-centric view, but, but, but, aren’t they produced by structures
transition said:
>Ive often thought that pedophilia was chemical related.so continues the neuro-chem’-centric view, but, but, but, aren’t they produced by structures
I see it as a first step in treatment and prevention
neuro-chemicals are just one small part of an overall picture
The paedophile rights movement started only a scant few years after the homosexual rights movement.
mollwollfumble said:
The paedophile rights movement started only a scant few years after the homosexual rights movement.
mollwollfumble said:
The paedophile rights movement started only a scant few years after the homosexual rights movement.
So a few years after the women’s rights movement.
mollwollfumble said:
The paedophile rights movement started only a scant few years after the homosexual rights movement.
It seems to me that there is a fairly basic distinction between a movement to allow consenting adults to do what they want together, and a movement to allow adults to do what they want with children (whether they “consent” or not).
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
The paedophile rights movement started only a scant few years after the homosexual rights movement.
It seems to me that there is a fairly basic distinction between a movement to allow consenting adults to do what they want together, and a movement to allow adults to do what they want with children (whether they “consent” or not).
exactly.. if children can’t be held responsible in a court of law, they are certainly not responsible to make these decisions for themselves. paedophiles don’t have rights.
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
The paedophile rights movement started only a scant few years after the homosexual rights movement.
It seems to me that there is a fairly basic distinction between a movement to allow consenting adults to do what they want together, and a movement to allow adults to do what they want with children (whether they “consent” or not).
exactly.. if children can’t be held responsible in a court of law, they are certainly not responsible to make these decisions for themselves. paedophiles don’t have rights.
Most know its wrong as the way they perpetrate the crime is sneaky and predatory.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
The paedophile rights movement started only a scant few years after the homosexual rights movement.
It seems to me that there is a fairly basic distinction between a movement to allow consenting adults to do what they want together, and a movement to allow adults to do what they want with children (whether they “consent” or not).
South Park had an episode about NAMBLA (which at the time I thought was made up as what decent person would actually create a real organisation like that)
Cymek said:
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:It seems to me that there is a fairly basic distinction between a movement to allow consenting adults to do what they want together, and a movement to allow adults to do what they want with children (whether they “consent” or not).
exactly.. if children can’t be held responsible in a court of law, they are certainly not responsible to make these decisions for themselves. paedophiles don’t have rights.
Most know its wrong as the way they perpetrate the crime is sneaky and predatory.
Its interesting that neurochemicals have an involvement with pedophile behavior which could lead to treatment and prevention
but how do you find these people before they commit a crime
>>> paedophiles don’t have rights
paedophiles do not have the right to violate the rights of children
and when they do they belong in jail
>>>Most know its wrong as the way they perpetrate the crime is sneaky and predatory.
Yes
CrazyNeutrino said:
Cymek said:
Arts said:exactly.. if children can’t be held responsible in a court of law, they are certainly not responsible to make these decisions for themselves. paedophiles don’t have rights.
Most know its wrong as the way they perpetrate the crime is sneaky and predatory.
Its interesting that neurochemicals have an involvement with pedophile behavior which could lead to treatment and prevention
but how do you find these people before they commit a crimeMonitoring of crimes of a similar nature but less serious nature perhaps.
We had to urgently process a client as he chased after women with his dick hanging out masturbating.
The worry was it would escalate to something much worse.
CrazyNeutrino said:
Cymek said:
Arts said:exactly.. if children can’t be held responsible in a court of law, they are certainly not responsible to make these decisions for themselves. paedophiles don’t have rights.
Most know its wrong as the way they perpetrate the crime is sneaky and predatory.
Its interesting that neurochemicals have an involvement with pedophile behavior which could lead to treatment and prevention
but how do you find these people before they commit a crime>>> paedophiles don’t have rights
paedophiles do not have the right to violate the rights of children
and when they do they belong in jail>>>Most know its wrong as the way they perpetrate the crime is sneaky and predatory.
Yes
its more of a bully type behavior isn’t it, coercion or force?
Im guessing that rapists might have a similar neurochemical involvement.
Cymek said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Cymek said:
Arts said:exactly.. if children can’t be held responsible in a court of law, they are certainly not responsible to make these decisions for themselves. paedophiles don’t have rights.
Most know its wrong as the way they perpetrate the crime is sneaky and predatory.
Its interesting that neurochemicals have an involvement with pedophile behavior which could lead to treatment and prevention
but how do you find these people before they commit a crimeMonitoring of crimes of a similar nature but less serious nature perhaps.
We had to urgently process a client as he chased after women with his dick hanging out masturbating.
The worry was it would escalate to something much worse.
thats interesting in that social norms are pushed aside for sexual gratification
the chemical involvement overrides and severely diminishes social norms
CrazyNeutrino said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Cymek said:Most know its wrong as the way they perpetrate the crime is sneaky and predatory.
Its interesting that neurochemicals have an involvement with pedophile behavior which could lead to treatment and prevention
but how do you find these people before they commit a crime>>> paedophiles don’t have rights
paedophiles do not have the right to violate the rights of children
and when they do they belong in jail>>>Most know its wrong as the way they perpetrate the crime is sneaky and predatory.
Yesits more of a bully type behavior isn’t it, coercion or force?
Im guessing that rapists might have a similar neurochemical involvement.
Someone should do a similar study on rapists, scan the brains of 100 rapists.
Arts said:
paedophiles don’t have rights.
Hi everyone! Just though I’d do a random “chirpy-chime” in here to advocate on behalf of paedophiles!
Yeah!
Really. I’m going to advocate on behalf of pedo’s.
I have internally debated whether this disclaimer is necessary, and ultimately have decided it is given the subject matter and a need to protect myself: MY STANCE IS THAT THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN IS THE PRIMARY… SECONDARY… TERTIARY… concern of ethical societies and of moral people; and that this condition exists for individual children at the expense of, if required, the rights of any adults.
I am not advocating paedophilia, I am advocating on behalf of paedophiles. The crucial distinctions that should be held between these two conditions should either be readily apparent to you or at least will hopefully become apparent throughout this text.
I don’t expect it to be necessary here, as I consider this to be one of the more mature forums that I frequent read, but I will say that any accusation levelled at me of wrongdoing or wrong-thinking which is based primarily on the taboo surrounding adult-child sexual relations which are levelled at me as a result of this post will be entirely ignored, with no concession made that a lack of reply implies guilt or inability to articulate a reasonable reply on my part. In other words, if you call me a pedo, I will ignore you.
Arts, for some (or maybe most) of this post I will be taking what is quoted above out of the context you intended. This post is not a direct reply to your statement, rather it uses your statement to articulate a point of view which I think is valid, but which at the same time is generally contrary to the values most people would espouse. Please do not take offence :)
So, having said all that:
Arts said:
paedophiles don’t have rights.
I’m sorry, but this statement is wrong on every level.
It’s literally wrong, it’s ideologically wrong, it’s trivially wrong, it’s morally and ethically wrong, philosophically wrong, medically wrong, objectively wrong, …. and damn-it, sentences start with an UPPER-CASE letter! lower-case…WRONG!!!!
It’s just not correct.
Taken literally, a paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. A person does not have to commit felonies against children in order to be a paedophile, the attraction itself is enough for the label to apply. Indeed, there may be many paedophiles in our society who live their whole lives without committing a crime related to their paedophilia. To deny such people any of the rights afforded to other law-abiding members of society, to punish people solely for thoughts that they have but never act on, is entirely immoral and is, any way, so obviously impractical to implement that it is not on any reasonable persons agenda.
Paedophilia is generally recognised as a mental disorder. As someone who has been diagnosed with a mental disease in the last couple of years (clinical depression, not paedophilia),and who has in retrospect been suffering from this for well over a decade, my empathy for those suffering mental disorders has flourished somewhat recently. Mental illness is a monster. It is not amenable to reason, logic or even desperate recourse. As someone who prides themselves on holding a rational, sceptical attitude to the world, my mental illness has me completely flummoxed. It is a monster living in a mind that does not believe in monsters. A monster that has no interest in listening to or valuing the things my mind cherishes. It feels like a demon from the depths of hell living in my brain, and it doesn’t care one iota that I don’t believe in demons or hell or the bullshit that it’s telling me about myself 24 hours a day.
So now (horrifically) I am going to try to empathise with a hypothetical paedophile, named Jo.
Jo was born in to an average middle class Australian Family.
Jo is growing up. Jo grows up to be neither particularly attractive nor ugly. Jo is not particularly smart or stupid. Jo is not particularly violent or passive. Jo is, as far as anyone can tell, a very average person.
But as Jo grows up, Jo is gradually afflicted by this feeling that something ain’t quite right, something ain’t quite normal. Whilst Jo’s friends seem to grow up liking the muscled triangular torsos of the football scholars, or the killer legs on the cheerleader scholars, Jo is slowly starting to realise that what turns Jo on sexually is not wide hips or broad shoulders or anything else resultant of puberty. Oone day, seemingly out of nowhere, some obscure back alley of Jo’s mind thrusts forward an epiphany….. “Hey Jo. You realize, do you not, that you are a paedophile?”
So Jo panics. Jo knows full well that “paedophile” is, without any shadow of a doubt, the very worst thing to be in this society that Jo lives in. It’s literally the worst thing you can be. Murderer? Murder is bad, but you know maybe sometimes it’s justified…. and hey! This computer game is called Hitman… of course I’m going to be murdering in it, it’s called Hitman! Murdering is bad, but murdering for money – like, professional murdering – that’s pretty cool…Ain’t nobody ever made a computer game where ya play a paedophile for hire. Murder can be cool, but raping children… not so much. Jo’s never seen any indication in his life that being a paedophile is anything other than the very worst thing you could possibly be. Jo can’t say “Mum, I’ve got something to tell you. I’m a paedophile and I’d really appreciate it if you could support me in this”. Jo can’t tell friends, Jo can’t tell family, Jo can’t tell random people on the internet… Jo can not represent himself or herself in any way relating to this… this is not something people want to offer help for; it’s something they demonise whilst disregarding the demon.
In short… Jo is fucked. Jo is under attack from this fucking supernatural demon that most people don’t even believe exists. Jo spends his or her whole life fighting this demon, not only without any help from others but with constant condemnation from everyone around them for hosting this demon in the first place…. like it’s their fault they are like this.
Jo determines very shortly after the epiphany that he or she is a pedo, that he or she is going to do everything possible to deny the demon satisfaction. As Jo gets older, this affects almost every aspect of Jo’s life (He/she purposefully avoids living in neighbourhoods with lots of young children, limits his or her job prospects (no Kindy teacher for Jo), friends can only be friends as long as they don’t get married and have kids etc).
Jo lives his or her whole life battling a supernatural demon that does not exist and so can not be combated in any reasonable way, limiting their life choices and quality of life in order to protect others, contributing to society just like anyone else even though that society is eminently hostile towards them…. Jo lives his or her whole life fighting a fight most people can not even begin to comprehend, but still lives a good life which enriches and does not detract from the human experience.
Jo is a paedophile. You can not reasonably take Jo’s legal, moral or ethical rights away. That is a horrible sentiment.
Arts said:
paedophiles don’t have rights.
Generally this is a sentiment I do agree with. Regardless of the concessions made for mental disease, as I said in the opening to this post I do believe the safety and well being of children trumps the rights of adults, and must always be the primary concern. However, that does not mean that we can not also have genuine concern for the paedophiles themselves.
Also, sympathy is a very different thing from rights. This can be demonstrated by even one case of a person wrongfully convicted of child abuse. Imagine if it was you, Arts. If tomorrow your whole world falls apart as your best friend accuses you of raping their child. There is no malice here. The child told their parents about something you did. The parents misinterpreted the child’s story and panicked. The parents report what they think is abuse by you to the police, and the child spends the next few weeks listening to their parents feeding them really bad vibes about you…. “Art’s is not me best friend any more… Art’s did bad things to you…. Art’s hurt you in horrible ways…. The result is that you have both a child “victim” and the parents of that victim genuinely believing in abuse that did not occur. Your defence lawyers screw up, you are wrongfully convicted of child abuse and sent to jail.
Oh, and also… all your rights have been revoked. You are a paedophile, after all. It’s not like you deserve any rights. So, two months in to your jail term evidence is uncovered which incontrovertibly proves your innocence but it doesn’t freakin’matter… you have no rights… you have no right to demand a court considers this evidence.
In modern western societies we legislate against actions. We do not legislate against thought. No policeman can burst in to my house just because I had the thought “Damn niggers deserve to burn, çause…. Niggers!”. You can not deny people their rights because you don’t like those people, or some of the things that go through their head.. This applies to paedophiles as much as it applies to J-walkers. Criminals do have rights in our society, regardless of the crimes they committed. This is just, and as it should be.
>don’t have rights.
In fact every time the law is applied it (fair application) also involves protection of the individual as far as they didn’t break any other laws(it protects their lawful acts/behaviours), as it does or is meant to do even when no law is broken.
if I buy a hamburger on the way to rob a bank, the buying a hamburger doesn’t become a crime because I was on my way to rob a bank. However, if I got a hamburger on the way home from robbing the bank and paid for it with the stolen money that would be.
transition said:
if I buy a hamburger on the way to rob a bank, the buying a hamburger doesn’t become a crime because I was on my way to rob a bank. However, if I got a hamburger on the way home from robbing the bank and paid for it with the stolen money that would be.
How do you determine your stolen money from pre robbery money?
bob(from black rock) said:
transition said:
if I buy a hamburger on the way to rob a bank, the buying a hamburger doesn’t become a crime because I was on my way to rob a bank. However, if I got a hamburger on the way home from robbing the bank and paid for it with the stolen money that would be.
How do you determine your stolen money from pre robbery money?
well, that is an important question, because process has to determine of you paid for it with your money, or the stolen money. The law is meant to protect you from being falsely accused and worse. The law is to protect your lawful behaviour/acts, bank robber or otherwise.
bob(from black rock) said:
transition said:
if I buy a hamburger on the way to rob a bank, the buying a hamburger doesn’t become a crime because I was on my way to rob a bank. However, if I got a hamburger on the way home from robbing the bank and paid for it with the stolen money that would be.
How do you determine your stolen money from pre robbery money?
He keeps in the other pocket.
CrazyNeutrino said:
bob(from black rock) said:
transition said:
if I buy a hamburger on the way to rob a bank, the buying a hamburger doesn’t become a crime because I was on my way to rob a bank. However, if I got a hamburger on the way home from robbing the bank and paid for it with the stolen money that would be.
How do you determine your stolen money from pre robbery money?
He keeps in the other pocket.
Fixed.
bob(from black rock) said:
transition said:
if I buy a hamburger on the way to rob a bank, the buying a hamburger doesn’t become a crime because I was on my way to rob a bank. However, if I got a hamburger on the way home from robbing the bank and paid for it with the stolen money that would be.
How do you determine your stolen money from pre robbery money?
Don’t think you can, it all depends on which money you use. For instance, you can use the bank’s money on a low interest loan to buy real estate, whilst at the same time using your available cash to purchase something like a car, which would attract a much higher interest rate.
esselte said:
However, that does not mean that we can not also have genuine concern for the paedophiles themselves.
Several European countries now run early intervention counselling programmes for paedophiles, to help them deal with their sexuality without offending. I’d agree that unthinking demonisation makes it harder for these people to seek help to keep control of their lives and stay safe and harmless.
bob(from black rock) said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
bob(from black rock) said:How do you determine your stolen money from pre robbery money?
He keeps in the other pocket.
Fixed.
I am sure that the money is not required to be separate, that would be silly and full of loopholes, more that the estate, cash and property of the crim can be used to restitute victims of the crimes.
Serial numbers on banknotes can help track stolen money. I don’t think anyone tracks hamburgers.
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:
However, that does not mean that we can not also have genuine concern for the paedophiles themselves.
Several European countries now run early intervention counselling programmes for paedophiles, to help them deal with their sexuality without offending. I’d agree that unthinking demonisation makes it harder for these people to seek help to keep control of their lives and stay safe and harmless.
Pedophilia is a taboo subject for most men who do not have a young family, this is despite most offenses are committed within the family unit. When a mature man is on his own, it is wise not to look at children and avoid areas where they gather, as it is so very easy to be labeled a pedophile by some overzealous person. I take my hat off to esselte for being so bold.
Of things that incline moral revulsion more generally.
Probably suppose to be mostly or firstly prophylactic, of behaviour controls. Avoidance of exciting whatever (hostility/contempt – adverse attention).
One thing I have noticed is that intrigues (and contagion) about whatever can be much weirder than reality. As if idle contempt needs a target.
The workings of the moral faculties can be a strange beast. I’m not convinced the moral bulb is greatly inclined toward self-deconstruction. Self-amplifying, yes.
esselte is generalizing and playing devils advocate. Child Abuse is not the same as pedophilia, which, I agree, is a mental disease.
I also agree that there are people with the same mental illness that never act on it, do you know why? because they also understand that their actions are against the law – both in a moral and legal sense. They don’t have the right to take away the rights of minors. There are people with different/other mental illnesses that, when committing a crime because of the illness are still prosecuted within the law. They lose their rights to freedom.
Should convicted pedophiles be offered ‘help’.. yes they should.
Should they lose their rights to freedom and good standing in society.. yes they should.
If some pedophiles can resist criminal activity because of an inbuilt moral standing, then the ones who don’t can be punished and have their rights taken away ie – it is not an excuse for their behaviour.
and let me address this
“Criminals do have rights in our society, regardless of the crimes they committed. This is just, and as it should be.”Criminals have fewer rights than the law abiding citizen. That is just. That is what our society as a adversarial society states.