Queue on 27/5/2009 at 13:25
Hi, this is the actor that plays Queue, and I just wanted to step in to say a few words. With all honesty, and as a victim of such behavior, I can't say I even want to begin to understand the force - the desire - that drives individuals to do certain actions. Yes, molestation can happen to anyone, perpetrated by anyone. It can be by those least suspected, or by the creepy guy down the road who spends his time in the basement playing with a train set. I think deep down, everyone has a "perv-switch" just waiting to be flipped; but through conditioning (the sense of right and wrong) we keep that switch from flipping. But, it happens. Obsession, the need to fulfill some bizarre desire, can become too much to prevent even for the most rational person.
Humans truly are awful creatures - though we have this ridiculous notion that civilization prevents that awfulness from coming out - who are more than willing to abuse our children, and not only in a sexual manner. Think back to the Victorian times where children were used, more or less, as chimney sweeps--one of the most awful, and deadly jobs around. Why? Because they could fit into the chimneys, and in the end the adults didn't have to do the work. Jump forward to today, children are used in sweat shops (working horrendous hours under deplorable conditions) to make our designer clothing and shoes. Why? Because we like to wear "status-enhancing" clothing. The point is, children have been robbed of their innocence since humans were capable of having children. What virgins do you think the Inca sacrificed? They weren't eighteen.
The only way to prevent abuse of children is to not hide from the fact that there are those out there who can't control themselves. Children must be educated on what to look for, and what humanity is really like. Protecting them doesn't mean shielding them from all the "bad things" out there--it's teaching them how to deal with a bad situation when that moment arrives.
Dia on 27/5/2009 at 13:37
Quote Posted by snowcap21
I tried to check a few facts, which isn't easy since many of the numbers you're presented with seem to be only estimations. But I've read, that about 90% of those, who molest children, aren't paedophiles at all, but would normally prefer adults as sexual partners. They pick the children as their victims because it's easier. So putting all the blame on paedophiles seems to lead away from the real problem.
Your statement caused me to do some research of my own, and I was surprised at what I found, one of the most interesting articles being: (
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/pedophilia_and_molestation.htm) However, I failed to see what was gained in making the distinction between child molesters and pedophiles other than for the sake of providing more statistics. Both commit crimes against children.
Quote Posted by snowcap21
On the other hand (even more complicated to get numbers here, because not many dare to admit their paedophilic inclination due to the social stigmatisation) there seem to be many paedophiles, that try really hard to keep away from children, because they know that living their phantasies would hurt them. They could use some help, and I think as long as they sucessfully suppress their urges they can even demand some respect, because they have no way to lead a normal sexual relationship. Offering the help before anything happens also means, that you have at least some sort of control and you'd hopefully learn more about the problem/dangerous situations/temptations.
I think you're being idealistic here. Considering, as you stated, the reluctance of pedophiles to admit their sexual inclination, how could they possibly get help? You can offer help for pedophiles until you're blue in the face, but if they don't accept that help then what's the point?
Quote:
Pedophiles are notorious rationalizers. Their behaviors are ego-syntonic (there is no conflict for them between their sense of right and wrong); therefore they will explain their actions with excuses such as: the behaviors have "educational value" for the child, the child derives "sexual pleasure" from the behavior, or that the child was "sexually provocative."
(from: (
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/pedophilia_and_molestation.htm) )
Afaic, when a child is molested and/or raped, there's no point in splitting hairs regarding whether the adult perpetrator in that case was a child molester or pedophile. The end result for the child is still the same.
At what point are the rights of the child sacrificed for the rights of the offender? I agree that there
should be harsher sentencing for those convicted of child molestation/rape, regardless of whether the offender is a child molester or pedophile. I'm trying to dissassociate my emotional response here, mind you; and it's not easy. From another interesting article ( (
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf) ):
Quote:
On average, the 4,295 child molesters were released after serving about 3 years of their 7-year sentence (43% of the prison sentence).
Quote:
Compared to the 9,691 sex offenders and to the 262,420 non-sex offenders, released child molesters were more likely to be rearrested for child molesting. Within the first 3 years following release from prison in 1994, 3.3% (141 of 4,295) of released child molesters were rearrested for another sex crime against a child. The rate for all 9,691 sex offenders (a category that includes the 4,295 child molesters) was 2.2% (209 of 9,691). The rate for all 262,420 non-sex offenders was less than half of 1% (1,042 of the 262,420).
Neither of the above was very reassuring. Okay, so the offender was arrested, tried (presumably in a fair trial), convicted, and sentenced. But 3 yrs. into his sentence he's released and within 1 to 3 years after his release he ends up committing another offense against a child. He gets arrested again and the same cycle begins all over. Again, where are the rights of the child to be protected from this predator?
P.S. Well said Q. Unfortunately, no matter how well educated our children are regarding predators who sexually prey on children, the bottom line is that the molesters are physically stronger, and have the ability to manipulate and/or just downright threaten the child into silence. A child saying 'No' to a potential molester/rapist isn't a 'bullet-proof vest' for that child.
Starrfall on 27/5/2009 at 13:41
Quote Posted by snowcap21
I also agree with what Vigil said, especially the last paragraph. Ignoring human rights, even that of a sex offender, also destroys the basis of the moral system.
I wonder if anyone here has actually put their money where their mouth is when it comes to defending the rights of child molesters or if saying a few words on an internet forum is all it takes to make you a good person.
Dia on 27/5/2009 at 13:53
Quote Posted by Starrfall
I wonder if anyone here has actually put their money where their mouth is when it comes to defending the rights of child molesters or if saying a few words on an internet forum is all it takes to make you a good person.
I do volunteer work (several times a week) for the DCFS Child Abuse Hotline and have been doing so for the past several years. (
http://www.state.il.us/dcfs/child/index.shtml) But that organization is dedicated to the protection & counselling of molested/abused children. Not child molesters.
P.S. There are branches of DCFS in just about every county in this state, if anyone else wants to volunteer their time.
Kolya on 27/5/2009 at 13:53
Quote Posted by Starrfall
I wonder if anyone here has actually put their money where their mouth is when it comes to defending the rights of child molesters or if saying a few words on an internet forum is all it takes to make you a good person.
In the posts before, all it took to make people feel good about themselves was to describe how they would torture and kill any offender. This is what caused a few people including me to defend their human rights.
Starrfall on 27/5/2009 at 14:05
Quote Posted by Kolya
In the posts before, all it took to make people feel good about themselves was to describe how they would torture and kill any offender. This is what caused a few people including me to defend their human rights.
That's fine, snowcap's post just struck me as funny because I don't think "talking about it on the internet but doing nothing else" is all that much better than ignoring it entirely.
There are almost certainly advocacy groups that work towards these sort of things. In the states the ACLU does (although they also have shittons of other stuff on their plate) and you might get some similar advocacy from a group like NAMBLA (although that might not be ideal.) You don't need to be a psychiatrist or a lawyer to help - probably what the groups want/need most is money, supplies, or just volunteer time. Depending on the particulars of your political system you could always get involved that way too.
Kolya on 27/5/2009 at 14:07
Frankly I don't see how I could actively protect those people. I'm neither a psychologist nor a lawyer and fortunately I haven't been in a situation yet where I'd have to uphold human rights in a lynch mob. Knowing me, I would do it and consequently receive my share of abuse.
Talking on the internet may not do much, but at least it tells others who think the same, that they're not alone with their opinion and don't need to shut up.
Starrfall on 27/5/2009 at 14:15
WILL YOU STOP IT >:(
Anyways don't take it too personally, I was just responding to swowcap's post. I don't think not doing anything makes you a bad person (and if it does then you probably have a lot to answer for, after all you're off galavanting around with girls in your fancy new apartment instead of making yourself destitute in order to save darfur, for example), I just don't think talking but not doing anything goes very far towards protecting our moral system.
Queue on 27/5/2009 at 14:20
Quote Posted by Kolya
... fortunately I haven't been in a situation yet where I'd have to uphold human rights in a lynch mob. Knowing me, I would do it and consequently receive my share of abuse.
That just reminded me of Fritz Lang's,
The Fury and the question it posed: What's the morality of allowing the lynch mob accused of murder to be murdered themselves?
