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.
Having read a lot of the research from the past 40 years or so, and especially the most recent research in the last few years, it makes the most sense to me as well.
Actually that would be ‘repressed’ not regressed. ‘Regressed’ in terms of non-pedophilic molesters, means that the person had developed a normal sexual attraction to adults with secondary sexual characteristics in alignment with their sexual orientation (heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual), but has regressed to an earlier stage....
I appreciate what you've had to say. It's interesting to read and think about. Despite that, I still somewhat agree with LuckyGem.
"Non-pedophilic", I assume, means not attracted to pre-pubescent children, but rather children who have gone through puberty, correct? In that sense, those kids definitely have secondary-sexual characteristics. But doesn't "regressed non-pedophilic child molestor" mean an adult who developed normally and matured, but for some reason 'regressed' - as if their sexual conciousness, awareness and attraction reverted - to like the time they were in middle school or whatever the case may be for that individual? If that's true, wouldn't they go after the the gender they were attracted to then? Do I have this all wrong?
Creeps are like snakes- they creep along the ground and hide in the dirt..These creeps will not just attack the same sex- but the opposite sex- the adult - the child- the family dog...This is worse than we imagine- These are creeps...who seek to destroy anything they can - and get a twisted perverse sexual charge that is not life generating but totally destructive- Like an arsonist who gets an erection watching a building burn...These freaks are like demons.
The question arises: who, then, in a secular culture determines the ethical norms? After Brinkin spent 22 years working to eradicate a line of moral demarcation, does someone or some system with different measures now get to draw a new line in the sand?
Quote:
If moral relativism is a valid argument, then Brinkin is innocent regardless of what he's done. And any man or woman with small children should accept the fact that if, in his mind, Mr. Brinkin believes it's acceptable to sexually abuse a child, and the child being abused should happen to belong to a fellow moral relativist, then that morally relativistic parent is duty-bound to pardon Larry's amoral behavior.
I don't care who says something is ok. If it hurts a person, or they are under the age of consent, or they say no. You can NOT do it.
Why is that so hard to understand?
That's fine.....but you have no other logic to base it on other than it being your personal preference. A much harder concept to grasp for many people.
I appreciate what you've had to say. It's interesting to read and think about. Despite that, I still somewhat agree with LuckyGem.
When it comes to something as serious as protecting children, I prefer to base my opinions on evidence-based information from reliable sources, not propaganda from anti-gay crusaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOKAN
"Non-pedophilic", I assume, means not attracted to pre-pubescent children, but rather children who have gone through puberty, correct? In that sense, those kids definitely have secondary-sexual characteristics.
No, 'non-pedophilic' just means that the perpetrator is not a true fixated pedophile who never deleloped an adult sexual orientation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOKAN
But doesn't "regressed non-pedophilic child molestor" mean an adult who developed normally and matured, but for some reason 'regressed' - as if their sexual conciousness, awareness and attraction reverted - to like the time they were in middle school or whatever the case may be for that individual? If that's true, wouldn't they go after the the gender they were attracted to then? Do I have this all wrong?
Not exactly. You are right that a non-pedophilic or 'regressed' child molestor has developed an adult sexual orientation and is attracted to adults, but has regressed back to before they developed an adult sexual orientation.
This is what Groth says in “Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons.” published in Archives of Sexual Behavior
(A. Nicholas Groth is one of the leading researchers and clinicians in this field. His work with thousands of sex offenders over several decades was used as the basis for FBI profiling of sex offenders against women and children)
Quote:
A fixated offender has from adolescence been sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to significantly younger persons. Sexual involvement with peer-age or older persons, where this has occurred, has been situational in nature and has never replaced the primary sexual attraction to and preference for underage persons.
"Regression" is defined as a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development. A regressed offender has not exhibited any predominant sexual attraction to significantly younger persons during his sexual development- if any such involvement did occur during adolescence, it was situational or experimental in nature. Instead, this individual’s socio-sexual interests have focused on peer-age or adult persons primarily or exclusively.
And from another leading researcher - Dr Gene Abel, who has done some of the largest studies on child molestors in the US. This is from a 2001 study of over 4000 admitted child molestors. This is what he says:
While it is a commonly held belief that men who prefer men as adult sex partners molest boys and men who prefer women as adult sex partners molest girls, our study results suggest something different.
The 1,038 men who molested boys reported a range of adult sexual preferences. More than 70 percent of the men who molest boys rate themselves as heterosexual in their adult sexual preferences. In addition, 9 percent report that they are equally heterosexual and homosexual. Only 8 percent report that they are exclusively homosexual. The majority of the men who molest boys are also married, divorced, widowed, or living with an adult partner.
More than 60 percent of pedophiles have other paraphilias. Many are exhibitionists or voyeurs. Of the pedophiles who molest girls, 21 percent also molest boys. Of the pedophiles who molest boys, 53 percent also molest girls.
What I hate the most about organized advocates of pedophilia is that they never go near kids with real parents- They look for the lost and neglected kids..as if they belong to no on like a stray dog...Some of them even mutter the word "consent"- These bastards....are the worst..I don't believe in capital punishment because the state carries it out...in these case I would get very personal and use very personal punitive action...The nerve of these people thinking even for a moment that a child can or would consent...The authorities know were the ring leader- who formally promote the abuse of kids..They should conduct raids on organizations like NAMBLA...or what ever it is called- and bring them to me to judge....then this insidious problem would stop existing.....chop of the head of the beast.
Humans are not little widgets all produced exactly the same on a factory assembly line. So if you are expecting any scientist to say "We are absolutely 100% certain" when it comes to something as complex as human sexuality, you are very naieve.
The facts are, that all the research to date supports sexual orientation having a biological basis rather than being a learned behavior or the result of parenting or child abuse.
Here, a detractor of the "reparative drive theory" admits of the awfully small sample size in refuting the theory. He then goes on to say that most of the studies testing it were not valid because of "retrospective self-reporting" but in turn applauds the stated study because it was a LARGER sample size with significant documentation on the cases.. but still was LARGELY anecdotal because of????.......retrospective self-reporting.
With all that said....there is still a very minuscule sample size when it comes to validating these claims EITHER WAY.
'It would appear' that you are very confused. Do you even know what the 'reparative drive theory' is? It's basically the discredited nonsense that religuous based 'pray away the gay' groups came up with about homosexuality being caused by having a distant father. Of course Throckmorton refutes it. Any rational person would. And he himself is a Christian psychologist to boot.
The large Wilson and Widom study he is referring to basically proves that the 'reparative drive' nonsense from the religious-based anti-gay group NARTH is pure bunkum. It also proves that homosexuality is not 'caused' by child sexual abuse.
Dr Throckmorton does excellent reviews of studies in this field. You appear to be struggling with understanding which studies and theories are which. You also appear to be struggling with the idea that humans are.... human. And not widgets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
In order to "organize into brain structure" you have to be "aware" or "conscious".....look at the terminology that study uses...
Gender Identity - The conviction of belonging to the male or female gender.
definition of conviction -
1: the act or process of finding a person guilty of a crime especially in a court of law - definitely not the context we are talking about...
2 a : the act of convincing a person of error or of compelling the admission of a truth - well according to Libs, Fems and many Gays....babies aren't "people" so can't be that
b : the state of being convinced of error or compelled to admit the truth - again....can't convince a fetus nor compel it to "admit" anything right? They are just clusters of cells
3 a : a strong persuasion or belief - who or what is being persuaded or believing?
b : the state of being convinced Who or what is being convinced
Now, here is something awesome for you to come to grips with....what you are saying is humans are predisposed to being homosexuals, trans, confused and whatever else you wish to state. You then go on to say it's by genetic code...
Did you know this logic is the EXACT SAME logic that was followed by The Bell Curve study to prove that Blacks were inherently more violent? And that the IQ disparity between races was largely genetic based?
Then this
Is gender a social norm or is it not??? Gender and Sex are different are they not? How can a fetus identify gender when gender is defined by society? They have NO STIMULUS... if you are saying the brain can discern at that stage.. THAT early.....in the event of abortion is a woman not killing an incredibly intelligent being?
Sorry for the digression...but it's necessary. These claims are made under the premise that a fetus knows it's confused before it is even developed.....
OR....it's just some pseudo-science bullcrap.
How does the gay brigade not pull their own brains out with their ambiguous hokey pokey trash science???
What on earth are you raving on about? Try reading the full article. It is talking about the effects of hormones on the development of fetal brain structure in the uterus. 'It would appear' that you are very confused.
'It would also appear' that you are struggling to understand what 'science' is and what the studies are about, so it's not surprising you would externalise your frustration and call it all 'hokey pokey trash science' or 'pseudo-science bullcrap'. Kind of like a pouting little child throwing a toy he can't get to work on the ground and calling it "dumb toy!".
However your lack of understanding, is just ....your lack of understanding.
The program called Second Mile he started also had girls. He chose to molest boys. He also abused his own adopted son. He had daughters as well they were not abused.
He had one adopted daughter, not 'daughters'. And five adopted sons. The youngest of whom has now accused him of molestation.
You have to be seriously naive to think that he would be allowed to take young girls to stay on overnights in his basement or to the male change rooms at the University. He had easy access to young boys, not girls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem
Male on Male sex is called homosexuality. I don't give a fig if one is 100 and the other is 10 years old. If both are 12 years old, or if they're both 8 years old. Same sex activity is called homosexuality.
You've already proven beyond any doubt that you don't give a 'fig' for factual information. What is disturbing, is that this is about protecting children. It appears that your prejuduce and hatred for gay people is far more important to you than having accurate reliable information about child molestors. This is the sort of attitude that helps child molestors to keep getting away with abusing children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem
You sound like a representative for NAMBLA - it's not homosexuality it's "love". It's an adult male showing his love for the boy, it's got nothing to do with homosexuality, it's not even pedophilia, it's "love". In the mind of the adult male he's actually regressed mentally to the same age as the boy so it's not a violation at all, he's convinced himself he's not an adult he identifies with the child so it can't be homosexuality... Is that right?
And this comment is just offensive as well as completely deranged. Where have I EVER, in several years of posting on these boards, defended child sexual abuse, pedophiles or child molestors in ANY way? Child molesters are very sick individuals who need to be kept away from children. That pedophiles call what they feel for children 'love' is an indication of how deranged they are.
Humans are not little widgets all produced exactly the same on a factory assembly line. So if you are expecting any scientist to say "We are absolutely 100% certain" when it comes to something as complex as human sexuality, you are very naieve.
The facts are, that all the research to date supports sexual orientation having a biological basis rather than a learned behavior.
'It would appear' that you are very confused. Do you even know what the 'reparative drive theory' is? It's basically the discredited nonsense that religuous based 'pray away the gay' groups came up with about homosexuality being caused by having a distant father. Of course Throckmorton refutes it. Any rational person would. And he himself is a Christian psychologist to boot.
The large Wilson and Widom study he is referring to basically proves that the 'reparative drive' nonsense from the religious-based anti-gay group NARTH is pure bunkum. It also proves that homosexuality is not 'caused' by child sexual abuse.
Dr Throckmorton does excellent reviews of studies in this field. You appear to be struggling with understanding which studies and theories are which. You also appear to be struggling with the idea that humans are.... human. And not widgets.
What on earth are you raving on about? Try reading the full article. It is talking about the effects of hormones on the development of fetal brain structure in the uterus. 'It would appear' that you are very confused.
'It would also appear' that you are struggling to understand what 'science' is and what the studies are about, so it's not surprising you would externalise your frustration and call it all 'hokey pokey trash science' or 'pseudo-science bullcrap'. Kind of like a pouting little child throwing a toy he can't get to work on the ground and calling it "dumb toy!".
However your lack of understanding, is just ....your lack of understanding.
No...all you've done is regurgitate your trusty bookmarks on fuzzy studies that in the end prove.......nothing.
Then you come back with your "Oh...BUT...the WEIGHTED data says...."
Well, if you have a 51/49 split on something one side is WEIGHTED isn't it? But it's VERY trivial.
Also, let's be honest... Why would I need to read the full article? I have read the cherry picked excerpts from said studies that you POUND in EVERY gay thread.
Again.... you can disregard words used in studies as "semantics"..but semantics ARE words and they have meaning. Especially in the context of science. "It would appear" you are taking studies, based on something you are very passionate about, for face value.
Come up with a study showing how the brain of a 2 month old fetus can be "convinced"...How does a 2 month old brain know about gender? How can a 2 month old brain understand what defines gender?
"It would appear" that you don't believe in pseudo-science.
Because of this..."it would appear" you take science as your personal religion...
At the VERY BEST all you have shown...after the redundant postings of the same studies.....is that it can neither be proven or disproven at this point. So people are totally justified into carrying the notion that humans choose who they want to develop relationships and feelings for, and further, act upon those emotions.
But all you have PROVEN is that you have feelings.
Last edited by Hot_Handz; 06-30-2012 at 09:01 PM..
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.
Of course Throckmorton refutes it. Any rational person would. And he himself is a Christian psychologist to boot.
He had easy access to young boys, not girls.
