I’m Glad I’m Not A Pedophile
Can anyone explain to me why we are supposed to be liberal open minded people and yet we are anti-pedophile? Now I know you might call this semantics but pedophillia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
This is not something I would chose to have, and I am sure the people who have this condition don’t chose to have it either. I am sure there isn’t a law against it yet?
So what is it that we as society don’t like – well I think that is child sex offenders, which is possibly committed by some people with pedophillia but I am sure it is also committed by others who we would not class as pedophiles.
So my point. I just wanted to put it out there, as it seems to me at least that the word is often used incorrectly, and I would like to think I would have sympathy for someone with a mental disorder rather than condemn them for something that they have little to no control over.
Quite right Martin. I think we all have our fetishes which endure. From canabalism to homosexuality and so on, the range and scope is limitless. I think it becomes blurred too by some mothers dressing under age daughters as if they are adult sluts – that is they are dressed to appeal to adult males. So what is it when a mum does that? What about the mums who prey on under-age boys, surely under “equality” they also are paedophiles.
I’m all for kids having a child-hood before being put into adult things, so paedophilia is not something I recommend, but I’m sure they have the same drive as a homosexual has. One is okay, the other not.
In my view paedophilia is treated the way it is because its another thing which can be very readily used to vilify males in particular. I do not agree with those who would kill paedophiles, however I think all psychological efforts should be used. Ultimately our children need to be safe to have a childhood – not negotiable.
Comment by Jerry — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 4:03 pm
In 2010 I added a page on MENZ with Important Information for Pedophiles / Paedophiles.
It may provide some insights into Martin’s question.
Comment by JohnPotter — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 5:49 pm
The good thing about pedophiles, is they don’t have a court like lawyers, that let’s them fuck with your kids.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 6:37 pm
Paedophiles aren’t all bad; they drive slowly past schools…
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 7:50 pm
Perhaps I was being too subtle, it is child sex offenders that are breaking the law, not pedophiles. BTW interesting article John thanks.
I was in a relationship with a school teacher up until a few months ago and she was shocked when I told her that I had sympathy for pedophiles. I let her rant a little and then explained the difference to her pedophile versus chid sex offender. To my amazement she told me that she disagreed; that she still found the very thought of a pedophile getting aroused by children to be distasteful, using her own kids as an example. I was totally shocked. A school teacher teaching young women could not comprehend that people have the right to free thought, and that I pitied the day that one would be vilified based on what they like and don’t like. She then irrationally asked me was I attracted to her children (not a very rational conclusion – he sympathizes with pedophiles therefore he must be one) and said she didn’t want to discuss it. For me, an overall victory for insanity. You see I am among other things a Humanist, and I am against any form of adult censorship. Anyway enough of that ranting.
Man X Norton @4 – yes very good :p
Comment by martin — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 11:34 pm
Paedophiles are the modern witches. Every era seems to need them. Much of what people now believe about them is false or exaggerated. For example, convicted child sex offenders reoffend at lower rates than most other criminals, and treatment programs are very effective at helping most of them avoid further offending. It’s relatively easy to change age preference in sexuality (e.g. from children to adults) but very difficult to change gender preference (e.g. from heterosexual to homosexual). However, in a witchhunt it’s almost impossible to discuss matters reasonably and dangerous to attempt to do so.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 9:51 pm
What would a female be charged with?
She can’t be charged with rape.
It’s ok for females to force males to have sex according to Judith Collins.
But you can guarantee a male offender would be charged with rape.
No grooming charge despite grooming taking place.
No stupifing charge despite giving drugs to the boy.
No use of the all to often miss used word pedophile.
Would a female committing the same acts be called one?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11865129
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 11:28 pm
I missed the bit about Judith Collins – can someone fill me in – what did she say?
Comment by martin — Mon 29th May 2017 @ 10:02 am
The witch hunt continues: Australia plans to remove passports from child sex offenders. Many will think “Hurrah for the brave country that gives those perverts what they deserve!”. Many people will also applaud Duterte’s hard-line approach to drug users; many others will applaud ISIS in ridding the world of infidels who won’t believe and behave as Islam demands. However, be aware that bad treatment towards the witches of today opens the door to bad treatment of your group tomorrow. Losing sight of fairness, compassion and decency is a cancer that eventually harms everyone. That, I suppose, is why humans invented human rights.
The article and the quoted politician referred to child sex offenders as paeodophiles, a typical error intended to demonize and stereotype all men convicted of related crimes.
The passport removal is essentially a form of imprisonment to a particular country beyond the sentence already imposed. It does not involve individual risk assessment, instead treating every person convicted of a relevant crime as if they present so high a risk of Asian child-sex tourism that leaving the country at all is banned. In reality, the rate of reoffending among convicted child sex offenders (except for those who offend against adolescent boys) is much lower than rates of reoffending for most other crimes. While true paedophiles will be at higher risk of child-sex tourism, most of those on the sex offenders register will be at no more risk than anyone else.
Many such offenders behaved inappropriately in the context of an emotionally close relationship with a child during which the offender’s sexual responses became confused with genuine affection; this is not an excuse or minimization of the offending for which the person should be held fully accountable, but it is inconsistent with any propensity to go on child-sex tourism. That group of offenders including most incest offenders show the very lowest rates of reoffending, in single-digit percentages even without rehabilitation programs, and after rehabilitation at rates no higher than that across the general population.
A significant proportion of those on the sex offenders register will be truly innocent, convicted on false allegations. A higher proportion of child-sex convictions are based on false allegations than for most other crimes, for several reasons. Firstly, prosecution and conviction are allowed and common on the basis of no evidence apart from one person’s allegations, unlike other crimes that need some corroborating evidence in order to progress beyond depositions and usually before police will even proceed.
Secondly, the statute of limitations has been seriously eroded for sexual cases but not for other criminal cases. For example, prosecution can proceed no matter how much time has elapsed between the alleged events and the time they are reported. Fallibility of memory is ignored, as is the impossibility of producing evidence that might counter the allegations after such a long time.
Thirdly, these low evidential requirements encourage people to misuse the system for ulterior motives. This results, for example, in false allegations suddenly arising halfway through Family Court proceedings, child welfare agencies then conducting interviews with children who have been sufficiently alienated or otherwise manipulated to report falsehoods whether believed by them or otherwise.
Fourthly, children are easily manipulated to believe things happened that didn’t happen. False memories are very easily implanted into children’s minds as shown by a large body of research over recent decades. (If anyone wants references to some of these published studies I can provide them.) In such research child subjects have easily been led to confidently make claims including vivid experiential details of experiencing events they had never experienced, such as meeting ghosts, being caught in mouse traps, going on helicopter trips and having surgery. In one study over 70% of the child subjects were easily brought to falsely remember being abducted by a UFO, and there was no difference in the ease with which those memories were implanted compared with false memories for a more plausible fictitious event. Many studies have shown that imagining suggested events increases the likelihood that people will develop false memories for those events. Distortion of memory is more likely when the person causing the distorting influence is seen by the child as a reliable adult rather than someone the child believes is unreliable, flawed or another child. However, courts typically will not allow this research to be presented to juries, ruling such evidence inadmissible. Better the jury remains ignorant to scientific facts and its members maintain their preexisting superstitions when they are deciding whether to believe allegations against men.
So fifth, witch-hunt mentality and the propaganda that has fostered it mean that juries, judges and others (even defence lawyers) bring to the task beliefs that make them vulnerable to accepting false or poorly evidenced allegations. They have been fed stuff like one in four, or one in three, or 103% of children have been molested but only a small proportion ever get to court so this one must be true, that children wouldn’t say such things unless they were true, where there’s smoke there’s fire, if a child appears to know more about sex that expected at that age it must mean the defendant is guilty, females are made of sugar and spice and all things nice so a mother would never implant false memories in her child or encourage the child to lie, etc etc. Such beliefs and mentality are now actively promoted by the Court process, for example by having children provide evidence from behind screens or from another room through video link, because it would be too traumatic for them to see the (gasp) defendant. What impression is this going to give to the jury?!
Sixth, the chances of defending oneself in court against false allegations have been progressively eroded specifically for sexual allegations. The defendant no longer has the right to face his accuser. Cross-examination of accusers and the topics allowed are seriously curtailed in sexual cases but not for other types of cases. Cross-examination will be quickly shut down if the child complainant becomes flustered, appears confused or in any way upset, even though that may result from being unable to explain inconsistencies and falsehoods rather than from anything the cross-examiner is doing wrong. Children’s evidence is now routinely introduced through showing a video interview made a long time earlier, not under any oath to tell the truth, the whole truth etc, in a private room often with the mother in a neighbouring room and by an interviewer trained to extract as much potential dirt against the accused man as possible and to quickly divert conversations away from anything the child might start to say that could call into question the allegations. Yes, those interviewers have to pretend to show some modicum of objectivity but there are numerous subtle ways in which they pursue their goal of getting evidence against the man, and attempts by an accused to present to the jury an expert’s critique of that video interview to highlight those subtle techniques will often be ruled inadmissible.
The actual proportion and risk of child sex offenders travelling overseas to exploit children is clearly low. According to the figures provided, ‘almost 800 registered child sex offenders’ traveled overseas and ‘about half’ to Asian countries in the last year. An unknown but likely small proportion of those who traveled to Asian countries will have traveled there for child-sex tourism or offended at all whilst there. There are around 20,000 people on the Australian child-sex offender register. So 2% of them traveled to Asian countries last year and some unknown smaller proportion of them might have intended to engage in child-sex tourism. Because of this everyone on the register will have their passports removed.
None of this is intended to excuse or minimize real sex offending or real child-sex tourism. However, respect for justice, human rights and fairness remain important for any decent society. A decent society would find a more solid, fair and reasonable basis for removing people’s passports than what Australia now plans. Those who choose to support their society abandoning fairness, decency and respect for human rights do so at their own peril.
Australia’s plan to remove passports from those on the sex offenders register is only contemplated because almost all in that group are men. No such treatment would be tolerated for any similar group that included a significant proportion of women.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 1st June 2017 @ 1:25 pm
9, Man X Norton, A really well thought out and considered comment!
I’m one of those who had previously prescribed to a narrow – unconsidered view of child sex abuse issues.
Someone loaned me Felicity’s book, I understood a lot of what you’ve mentioned after reading it.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Thu 1st June 2017 @ 9:25 pm
Pity the law wasn’t there when my son was sexually abuse by a female some 20 years ago. I took him to 3 different Councillors back then and not one of them mentioned that there were no criminal offend for a female offender. With all the heartache and miss trust my son had and everything else, it sent him to destruction. When he finally makes a complaint to Police who caught up with the offender and got confession on tape, she still couldn’t be charged because it was not law. But the suffering and heartache my son has had to deal with meant nothing.
Comment by peeps — Wed 28th June 2017 @ 12:13 am
# 8
Judith Collins as a result of a female offender, child sex abuse case was asked by the media why it’s not a crime to rape a child if the offender is female. This was the due to the prosecution, police, saying the male was according to the evidence forced to have sex, being rape in all ways but the law.
Judith gave a cheeky grim to the camera and said “I will get my officials to look into it, to find out why that is.”
Obviously Minister of Justice officials think there is some good reason for it to be legal for people the force children to have sex.
The law has not been updated, or more correctly, fixed.
Also it wasn’t until 2008 that age of consent discrimination ended.
Japan created there’s in 1999, leaving only NZ and Saudi Arabia without age of consent offences for an identifiable group.
Due to Judith’s Collins and/or her Ministry, unlike modern, and third world countries, NZ still has legalised rape.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 28th June 2017 @ 10:18 am
Professor Tromovitch and the psychologist Bruce Rind (of Temple University) in 1998 published an article based on a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of 59 studies which used the self-reported experiences of child sexual contact with adults by 35,703 college students. A substantial majority of the people in this study did not report any harmful effects of (non-coercive) sexual experiences (as opposed to victims of coercion), and a substantial minority even stated these intergenerational sexual contacts and relationships had a positive effect on their life. This article was published in the Psychological Bulletin, the prestigious, official journal of the American Psychological Association (APA).
Predictably, this caused a storm in the mass media and in the political elite. Apparently for the first time in US history, both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate condemned this scientific paper and threatened to withdraw funding from the APA, so the APA apologised for publishing it. 12 past and present presidents of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex sharply protested against the APA’s response to the public and political pressure surrounding the study, stating that it “cast a chill on all such research”. The American Association for the Advancement of Science refused APA’s request to review the study, stating they saw “no reason to second-guess the process of peer review used by the APA journal in its decision to publish” and that they “saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article’s authors”.
More recently, the Harvard lecturer Susan Clancy came to the similar conclusions in her book “The Trauma Myth”. In the 1970s and 1980s, Donald West, Professor of Criminology from the University of Cambridge, advocated the abolition of the age of consent in scholarly books. See also Professor Richard Green’s article (he is a psychiatrist from Cambridge University and UCL) “Is Paedophilia a Mental Disorder”.
In the words of Karin Freimond (“Navigating the Stigma of Pedophilia:
The Experiences of
Nine Minor-Attracted Men in Canada”, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Frasier University, 2013): “Many adults who are attracted to minors experience intense suffering as a result of contemporary attitudes about them and current methods of relating to them. Even when no crimes have taken place and no sexual interaction with people below the age of consent has occurred, people who are sexually interested in children and adolescents encounter incredible stigma. They experience fear about the possibility of their desires becoming known to others, and they cope with depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. These individuals are often completely alone in dealing with their feelings, as they may be too worried about the negative consequences that could arise from talking to loved ones. Further, they may feel restricted in seeking help from therapists, as mandatory reporting laws in many jurisdictions require counsellors to report their clients to the police if they express sexual interest in children. If the nature of their sexuality is revealed, these people are at risk of experiencing physical violence, losing relationships with their friends and families, being fired from their jobs, and encountering financial destitution. The situation facing this population is troubling, and researchers argue that a new, more compassionate approach is needed in order to help people who are attracted to children lead more positive lives (see Cantor, 2012; Goode, 2010).”
Comment by Rob — Wed 1st November 2017 @ 1:05 pm
People who defend those who are sick in sexual attraction of children in this pedophilia, without defending or offering a permanent solution to the victims, are like a resounding gong blowing farts in the wind.
Martin, you are wrong!
Comment by Mark Silverbird — Wed 8th August 2018 @ 5:03 am
This is a little Witch Hunt type article.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/106206341/christchurch-pianist-on-british-sex-offender-register
He hasn’t done that much wrong. He admits his act. He informs officials in NZ of his status.
But why this article?
Is it a moral thing to set out to destroy someone?
Using the power of the media?
Was it to discuss the subject, a willing participant?
Is the effect on the person excessive?
You get success when people engage with help. Those helping make sure the persons risks are addressed.
Public shamming is dangerous, nearly intentional. IE vindictive, even fatal.
If the person is finishing the 3rd lag for actually sex offending and refuses help then doing an article is reasonable. The risk is higher than the rewards of not informing the public.
It costs a fortune to imprison everybody for life, as some would like.
Yes there is freedom of the press.
But they have to opertunity to discuss the subjects about reporting history when entering NZ.
They did not need to name and shame somebody.
That’s like Witch Hunt Stuff.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 13th August 2018 @ 11:07 pm
Anyone who holds any moral high ground on what category to slide pedofiles into whilst keeping a p.c tone needs there fuckin head read or kicked in how dare anyone try and rationalize that kind of behavior, i looked up mens rights in nz and to my surprise i find a bunch of borderline pedos trying to brand pedophilia a sickness. Fuckwits
Comment by Angus murray — Mon 11th February 2019 @ 9:57 pm
This is the sickness we now have in society, this sick inclusiveness we are now supposed to adopt is now either blurring the lines terribly or having society ‘like’ without a thought or no thought toward issues at all, ignorance is on the rise.
If you speak out against any one or anything you are labeled a rogue , a redneck, and this is definitely something that is rejected, non like, something you are not allowed to be.
Call pedophelia a sickness?, sure, but it is wrong and no doubt it is SICK.
Comment by mama — Tue 12th February 2019 @ 8:02 am
Historically we have regarded child sex offenders as pedophiles.
My understanding is that it is now a recognised condition in both males and females with some choosing to act on those inclinations.
It’s preferably that people in this situation do not feel threatened about seeking help rather than offending.
On that basis I’m prepared to draw the distinction and say not all pedophiles are sex offenders.
I’ve also made the point before that the less men who feel some form of threat from society the better. The larger the cooperative group of men is, the better for us and for society.
There’s a post here entitled Paypigs which may be of interest.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 12th February 2019 @ 11:04 am