Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where in the world do you see a contradiction? We can't put people in jail for being attracted to children anymore than we can put someone in jail for having the urge to steal your wallet or smack you with a 2x4. We can however take preventative measures in the form of therapy if the people who have this problem know that they can get professional help suppressing it. The morons who care more about letting pedophiles know that they'll be lynched if they hear about it are certainly no help in that regard.
What deters pedophiles from molesting children is self control and the threat of punishment for that action. The stigma towards people who have the urge and have not acted on it doesn't accomplish anything.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Having people "in mental health institutions" implies incarceration of sorts. Receiving therapy not so much.
The first sentence is true, although I think you mean "by [legal] definition" rather than "by default". The second sentence is not always true, as it is well known to people who work in the field that many people under the age of consent are willing and even enthusiastic participants in sexual activity. That is something many people don't like to think about, but it is a notoriously well-known reality.
Just because they are enthusiastic doesn't mean they have the rational capacity for such activities.
Sex offenders in general do not have a higher recidivism rate than other categories of offender. Yes, I know you've heard differently and I've heard it in all the same places you have, but it isn't true.
One time is enough to be nuetered, drawn and quartered.
Somebody mess with my kids and I'll give em' a redneck vasectomy.
If you referred to Kevin Jennings as a NAMBLA supporter in a public way, i.e. if you had a venue that could harm his reputation and you were anything but a piddling Internet prodigy, he would have a cause to sue you for libel.
An FBI agent ... a Congressman ...Fox News doesn't seem to be facing any law suits, and Jennings deviate connections and views are clearly documented.
The trouble with suing for libel is that the information must be false. If it's true, no libel.
While pedophilia certainly ought to remain classified as a psychiatric disorder, there ought to be a major shift away from the cultural acceptablity of hatred for individual pedophiles, which is as shameful as would be hatred of individuals with schizophrenia or Alzheimer's. To the extent that it contributes to such a dialogue, this group is pursuing a positive agenda.
Agreed. Something, in this case pedophilia, can be distasteful to society, but we still don't need to have the hate and witch-hunt mentality for those who are so inclined.
I believe it is indeed an illness, often brought on by childhood abuse. We can treat those who are ill, AND ensure the safety of innocents without hate or fear-mongering.
The distinction between the urge and the action is important. The law punishes the action of child molestation, not the tendency towards it. We cannot legally punish pedophiles for the condition of pedophilia, regardless of how hot blooded you get about the issue. Yet a person is not only a pedophile after they have molested a child. Get this through your heads, people. The only group that can take preventative measures is the mental health community.
This thread confirms what I've always suspected about certain people who seem to care more about punishing offenders than preventing victimization. If you take a reactionary rather than proactive approach to the problem, then you can only address it after a child has been victimized. Myself, I care more about making sure that the people with these tendencies are in mental health institutions where they belong rather than, you know, molesting children. It's far better for pedophiles to go seek help rather than wait until they do something that cannot be undone.
So the only question here is whether you care more about appearing tough on crime with a lot of rhetoric that is totally unrealistic in our legal system or whether you care about doing what we actually can do to save children.
Yes, and those 'tough on crime" measures so often catch-up people who are not pedophiles...like I mentioned before, people who caught peeing behind bushes, skinny-dipping, etc. Or laws enacted with "good intentions" are used for ill...such as the ability to make accusations without proof, and the removal of statutes of limitations which allow people to make allegations 20 years after an alleged incident.
What peole often fail to realize is that when a person is put on a sex -offender registry (with all the accompanying restrictions) there is almost always "collateral damage" and so often that "collateral damage" is a child or other family members.
Our laws need to make sense. We need to move away from a fear- driven society.
Another thing is, if a 15 year old can be considered adult enough to be tried as an adult for murder, than a 15 yr. old should be adult enough to make a decision on having sex...and should also be held accountable if he/she mis-represents their age
You are either unaware of the history or are intentionally engaging in the deception.
The facts are, Pedophilia was altered in the DSM-IV, softening the language which previously listed the commission of pedophile act as criteria for establishing the existence of a mental disorder. In this watered down version the APA changed its criteria so that a person who molested children was considered to have a psychiatric disorder only if his actions "caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning. Translated into English, if the pedophile was an unremorseful sociopath who's molestation of children didn't cause him mental distress or negatively affect his functioning in other areas of life, then he was a normal "pedophile".
This change met with outrage from many directions, and the APA reversed it's position with a revision to the DSM-IV, returning to the old assessment.
But the APA sure did try to normalize child molestation ... in a very careful, deliberate, incremental manner, and only backtracked from immense outside pressure.
And I've read dozens of papers by prominate psychologists and psychiatrists who have attempted to downplay child molestation, including some who go as far as to suggest that it is actually beneficial to the child victims.
Neither of the first bolded apply. I am not in the habit of misrepresenting the field or of lending support to pedophiles.
Actually, the diagnosis of Pedophilia, like most disorders, has been revised throughout the DSM's history. For brevity's sake, I'll skip over the first few editions.
DSM-III (1980): same criteria as today, with two exceptions: 1) it required multiple sexual acts with children to be diagnosed (not just one) and 2) it required the pedophile to have a primary attraction to children (excluding those pedophiles who also have adult attractions)
DSM-III-R (1987): revised #2 above to include pedophiles who also have adult attractions
DSM-IV (and IV-TR; 1994, 2000): revised #1 so that one instance of sexual contact with a child is sufficient for diagnosis
Both III-R and IV expanded the diagnosis, not watered it down as you claim.
To specifically address your comment about watered-down criteria: you are referring to criteria B which reads:
"B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty" (DSM-IV-TR, 2000; italics and bolding mine).
An unremorseful sociopath who had sexual contact with a minor would absolutely meet criteria for the diagnosis. The "OR" in the criterion is pretty important. It actually expands the diagnosis a bit to include those who have not acted on their urges, but are clinically distressed/impaired by them.
The other thing to keep in mind here is someone diagnosed psychiatrically as a pedophile is not necessarily the same thing as someone who has molested children (which makes them a criminal in addition to a pedophile). I am unaware of the prevalence of pedophiles who do not act on their urges; as I mentioned elsewhere on the thread, they are the one group I am unable to be professionally unbiased with so I choose not to work with them. My work is predominantly with victims.
Sorry, but I am not aware of any prominent, respected psychologist or psychiatrist who has tried to downplay or imply molestation is beneficial to the child. This is not a recognized or accepted viewpoint in the psychological community. I wonder if you have read any of the vast literature on the adverse effects of sexual abuse on children? I would venture a guess that there are thousands.
It seems disingenuous to me to claim that there is support for normalizing pedophilia in the psychological community, when at best what can be shown are fringe groups like the ones mentioned earlier in this thread which represent nothing but the opinions of a radical group.
Well, many people would agree, but as the APA points out, it isn't the act of pedophilia that causes harm, rather it is the connotations associated with it that cause harm.
What the APA is saying that labeling "victims" of pedophilia as "victims" and labeling the behavior as harmful is what causes harm.
Ummmmm, not sure where you're getting this from? The APA is not at all saying that the label of harmful behavior is what creates victims of sexual abuse. The APA is pretty darn clear on the adverse effects of pedophilia on victims.
Promote whatever viewpoint you want, but please don't misrepresent a nationally recognized organization in the process.
I do plan to respond to this in detail, but my initial thought (putting aside your insulting my entire field as garbage science) is that absolutely there are different assumptions, statistical and otherwise, in whatever "hard" science field you are in and the social and medical sciences. If your criteria for social science research is that it meet the same assumptions as say, physics research, I can fully understand your opinion.
Pretty much. Don't get me wrong, I understand the merit in the considerations of those fields, I just don't think it can be used conclusively, especially when it is driving political policy and the like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
While there are more uncertainties and variability in many social science variables than in "hard sciences," there are also methodological and statistical ways to correct for and attenuate the potential for bias. Is all bias eliminated? No. Does that make it (all social science research) garbage? No.
Statistics I have a big problem with when it comes to conclusive position. Statistical means are not the solution to dealing with the unknown when it concerns establishing fact in a position (that is what testing and validation is for). Statistics are simply an assumptive scenario that provides a means to expand questions in that search. These days, they are used as if they were a divination machine to the truth and often the methods applied are layers upon layers of such assumptions to which can not "correct for" things that are not understood. The variables in human nature are so vast and so complex that it is beyond measure to attempt to claim that some sophisticated algorithm can account for their interactive variations.
In terms of bias, the problem is, the methodology of the statistics are often the problem here (along with the test beds which are often far too small or tainted with variable influences that statistics are relied on more and more). That is where the bias gets inserted. Complex means of establishing what the variables should be are all based on the assumption that the seeding principal is correct. So if you create a complex model based on what you assume, then you are simply manufacturing your own result.
Statistics can help to elaborate a bit on a key facts you do know, but they can not fill in facts you do not, which unfortunately, they often do, especially in such fields.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
Your assertions in bold have a number of problems, including your interpretation of peer-review and overemphasis on the influence of bias and politics. While I understand that compared to whatever hard science field you are using as a comparison, psychological research seems squishy, it does not mean that psychological research itself is squishy. I find the general population seems to discount all social science research as untrustworthy because they don't know how to evaluate the solid research from the garbage research.
Like I said, they have some merit, they may be sound in a position, but that does not make the position valid unless they meet the principals of more hard sciences which validate their positions through consistent results and independent replication to which "properly" (not through modeled assumptions) accounts for divergence in any particular position.
So while I can take a finding made by such a field and say "interesting", "could be", "it appears it may be possible", I can never accept it as anything other than a plausibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
Either way you slice it, social science research is more replicable and credible than some of the crackpot ideas that get tossed around on C-D backed up by nothing but superstition, conspiracy theory, and opinion.
Many aspects of those field provide useful insight into things. There are many patterns that elude to certain occurrences and while the ball may not roll to the left 10/10 times, 7/10 times may give enough information to be able to learn about other points which may "eventually" lead to some actual facts in the issue.
Problem is, we won't find those if we treat these fields as if they were establishing facts (which many tend to think they are producing, even some of the establishments to which represent them). If we treat their findings more along the lines of trends of analysis (with uncertainty), then we do not violate the aspect of science. Unfortunately, a lot of the research out there is simply garbage, an exercise in creative math.
As for the claims made on CD, I take most with a grain of salt, even those that may fall into my subjective opinion. If it can't be verified, validated, and replicated to its nature, it is simply yet another opinion and everyone seems to have one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
