The demonization of pedophiles.

[grumbler]

Or is it not as damaging as we are led to believe?  How many children are abused sexually?  How many go on to become abusers?  I'm beginning to suspect the "ick" factor is a major part of it.  I'm wondering if that as homosexuality becomes more acceptable, people who are disgusted by that sort of behavior are shifting their hate to pedophiles who in their mind are similar and a safer target of hatred.  It seems the mass awareness and moral panic concerning pedophilia coincides with the mainstream acceptance of homosexuality.

It coincides with a lot of things.

And doesn't coincide with widespread acceptance of gays.  There were a series of cases about thirty years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria that involved moral panic that makes today's commentary seem quite tame (maybe a dozen innocent people went to prison for extended periods because hysteria overcame the judgement of even prosecutors and juries charged with judging only the facts).  Gays weren't widely accepted back then; the whole Anita Hill/Florida voter rejection of anti-gay-discrimination laws had been only four years prior.

I don't think we need to equate intolerance of child sexual abuse to anything else whatever in order to understand it. 

[Valmy]

Or is it not as damaging as we are led to believe?

Well I would point to two things: first non-consensual sex is damaging enough to adults is it not?   I mean we have all these rape counselors and shelters for a reason.  Why would it be less damaging to children?

Secondly: statistics show it correlates to all sorts of anti-social behaviors both as a child and as the abused child becomes an adult.

Now it kind of goes back to my chicken and egg question.  Does the psychological reaction come from the social taboo?  If we declared sex with children ok today would the damage disappear tommorow?  It seems hard for me to believe that.

But in any case that is a fantasy scenario.  In our society today, as it stands, it is appears to be very damaging.

[The Brain]

Or is it not as damaging as we are led to believe?

Well I would point to two things: first non-consensual sex is damaging enough to adults is it not?   I mean we have all these rape counselors and shelters for a reason.  Why would it be less damaging to children?

Secondly: statistics show it correlates to all sorts of anti-social behaviors both as a child and as the abused child becomes an adult.

Now it kind of goes back to my chicken and egg question.  Does the psychological reaction come from the social taboo?  If we declared sex with children ok today would the damage disappear tommorow?  It seems hard for me to believe that.

But in any case that is a fantasy scenario.  In our society today, as it stands, it is appears to be very damaging.

I already answered this. Jesus.

[grumbler]

Now it kind of goes back to my chicken and egg question.  Does the psychological reaction come from the social taboo?  If we declared sex with children ok today would the damage disappear tommorow?  It seems hard for me to believe that.

Hard for me to believe, as well.  Back when marriages were arranged, and sometimes involved girls in their teens or even younger, the marriages were not consummated until the girls came of age, and sometimes even later than that.  Below a certain age, people are simply not able to comprehend what is happening, and sex at that age creates responses enormously at variance with what these people are then told sex is supposed to be like.  That feeds an "I am really different and weird and unacceptable" feeling among the victims, which inhibits later attempts to have a normal sex life.

I don't think the Greeks had sex with boys who were unable to really comprehend sex, like Sandusky did, so they probably aren't a good counter-example.

[Razgovory]

And doesn't coincide with widespread acceptance of gays.  There were a series of cases about thirty years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria that involved moral panic that makes today's commentary seem quite tame (maybe a dozen innocent people went to prison for extended periods because hysteria overcame the judgement of even prosecutors and juries charged with judging only the facts).  Gays weren't widely accepted back then; the whole Anita Hill/Florida voter rejection of anti-gay-discrimination laws had been only four years prior.

I don't think we need to equate intolerance of child sexual abuse to anything else whatever in order to understand it.

Just because you didn't tolerate gays back in the 1980's doesn't that was the same for everyone.  When were the first sodomy laws struck down in the US?  Looking around a lot of them were struck down between 1970 and 1990.  As it was, I was thinking of those high profile cases of child abuse in the 1980's.  They happen to coincide with the first real fruits of the gay rights movement.  Take for example this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University

[Razgovory]

I don't think the Greeks had sex with boys who were unable to really comprehend sex, like Sandusky did, so they probably aren't a good counter-example.

Why not?

[grumbler]

Just because you didn't tolerate gays back in the 1980's doesn't that was the same for everyone.  When were the first sodomy laws struck down in the US?  Looking around a lot of them were struck down between 1970 and 1990.  As it was, I was thinking of those high profile cases of child abuse in the 1980's.  They happen to coincide with the first real fruits of the gay rights movement.  Take for example this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University 

I am not sure what you are arguing here; are you saying that, because you struck down some sodomy law in 1970, you sent people to prison for sex with children in 1984?

Homosexuality was not widely accepted by you in the early 1980s, when you first started to get hysterical over sex and satanism in preschools.  In fact, when you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University , for example, you will see that your local courts agreed with Texas A&M's position barring gay organizations right up through 1984, when the USSC refused to hear the case after the Fifth Circuit overturned the local courts - and that this case remained controversial with you even after the USSC ruled.

So, the assertion that you care more about child sex abuse because you accept homosexuality seems an entirely un-evidenced assertion, and seems contrary to the evidence available.

[Neil]

Pedophiles are demonized because we consider minors unable to give meaningful consent.  I don't know that there's all that much more to it.

Close, but you've reversed it.  The truth is that we consider minors unable to give meaningful consent so that pedophiles can be demonized.

[Razgovory]

Just because you didn't tolerate gays back in the 1980's doesn't that was the same for everyone.  When were the first sodomy laws struck down in the US?  Looking around a lot of them were struck down between 1970 and 1990.  As it was, I was thinking of those high profile cases of child abuse in the 1980's.  They happen to coincide with the first real fruits of the gay rights movement.  Take for example this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University 

I am not sure what you are arguing here; are you saying that, because you struck down some sodomy law in 1970, you sent people to prison for sex with children in 1984?

Homosexuality was not widely accepted by you in the early 1980s, when you first started to get hysterical over sex and satanism in preschools.  In fact, when you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Student_Services_v._Texas_A%26M_University , for example, you will see that your local courts agreed with Texas A&M's position barring gay organizations right up through 1984, when the USSC refused to hear the case after the Fifth Circuit overturned the local courts - and that this case remained controversial with you even after the USSC ruled.

So, the assertion that you care more about child sex abuse because you accept homosexuality seems an entirely un-evidenced assertion, and seems contrary to the evidence available.

I was three in 1984.  You were an adult.  I know you like to throw everything back into someone's face, but c'mon.

[The Brain]

IIRC sodomy and bestiality laws were removed in 1944 in Sweden.

[viper37]

For example, why there is a public interest in me knowing that someone living next door was once arrested for indecent exposure, than knowing he killed 5 people.

depends whom he killed, how and why.
There's a difference between a serial killer and mafia hitman, imho.
Someone who's found guilty of raping and strangling a woman or a child seen as physically weaker, or abusing someone emotionally weaker is seen as a form of predation, and as such frowned upon in our societies.

A guy murdering someone his own size, either as an accident or as a premeditated murder is seen as the survial of the fittest, simply.

It's hard for you to understand, because like many homos you seem to dislike children, but really, it's hard to feel pity for a well educated men who admitted stabbing repeatedly his kids while they begged him to stop.

[viper37]

Okay, maybe I should step back.  What do board members think of the claims that a pedophile is predisposed toward his sexual peculiarity?  That the pedophile lusts for small children because that's the way his head is wired.  He was born that way.  Is this a legitimate statement?

I believe it seems legitimate, based on what I saw lately.  Doesn't mean it's ok to do it because the pedo was born that way.  Many people are born one way or the other and as a society we try to change certain behavior wich are seen as having bad consequences for other members of the society.

Reconginizing that a pedophile can not be cured is, imho, one way to better control them. 

[grumbler]

I was three in 1984.  You were an adult.  I know you like to throw everything back into someone's face, but c'mon.

I have no clue as to what your age in 1984 has to do with anything.  When you say to me "Just because you didn't tolerate gays back in the 1980's..." I assumed you were using the word "you" as a synonym for "some people," (since that was the only way it made sense) and in reply to you used "you" in exactly that way.

If, on the other had, you are actually making the claim that you, personally, at the advanced age of three years, somehow came to the evidenced conclusion that I personally "didn't tolerate gays" in 1984, I can only conclude that this pretty much robs your entire argument of any shred of cred.  In that case, the response from me is completely unnecessary, and hence withdrawn.

[Razgovory]

You know, if someone were take a random sampling of your posts and mine they would have a difficult time figuring out who was the lunatic and who was the respected teacher.

[grumbler]

IIRC sodomy and bestiality laws were removed in 1944 in Sweden.

"If you remove them, He will come..."