Outstanding questions for Pedophiliacs

MapleSyrup wrote:Another question:
Any difference between female and male pedophiles (can be pedophiliacs too)? I haven't searched the topic. What is the percentage of male and female pedophiles?

There isn't a lot of good research on the gender breakdown. Males are believed to be more common, but I think that has more to do with preconceptions about female asexuality and the fact that males are relatively easier to examine the sexual response of physically.

MapleSyrup wrote:BTW: the blind spot is more or less the grey area and the overlapping.

The way you use words is strange. But if I'm understanding you correctly, while there are pedophiles who have molested children, pedophiles are less likely to molest children than nonpedophiles are.

MapleSyrup wrote:Also Q: in consensual incest could it all have started as pedophile feelings desires then develpoed into consenting adults act? In this example there is a blind spot.....the spot when the just the contained feelings turn into real act.

I'm sorry, but I tried to read the thread you linked, but I did not understand the story you were trying to tell.

MapleSyrup wrote:Ok, questions are flowing as expected.

Only about 10% of child molesters are actually pedophiles

.
Although "only" was used, but 10% is still huge number of population. So, there is risk and danger. So how do we know who is from the 10% and who is from the 90%? What do you expect from the law enforcing authorities? just to close their eyes and disregard the danger?

I knew I should have given you the whole math post. I wrote this up some time ago and saved it, since I noticed the same questions coming up over and over again. I hope this helps you understand the situation:

Not only are pedophiles unlikely to rape children (in the same way heterosexual males are unlikely to rape women), but statistical evidence has shown that nonpedophiles are more than twice as likely to molest children than pedophiles are.

Don't believe me? I don't blame you. Here are the statistics.

FBI sex offender expert Kenneth Lanning stated in a 2001 interview that "About 90 percent [of child molesters] are so-called "situational child molesters" who capitalize on opportunities to molest children but don't necessarily prefer sex with children ... The 10 percent of child molesters who make up the second category are the bona fide "pedophiles," those who genuinely favor sex with children."

Here's the link to the interview:
http://web.archive.org/web/200306210027 ... phile.html

Lanning's figure is supported by various sources. Here is another source citing similar figures:
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/nov ... _offenders

Studies of adult arousability has shown that pedophiles make up as much as 20-33% of the adult male population. 20% is the lowest number I've seen, but I haven't seen the actual study purporting this number. I have seen, and can link to the study purporting the 33% figure.

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97 ... ticle.html

For those uninterested in reading the whole article, it was done using a number of volunteers, and measuring their arousal using a device attached to the penis as they were shown different materials. While 85% showed some arousal to pedophilic stimuli, in 33% of their test subjects, the arousal equaled or exceeded the arousal to adult stimuli.

Taking the conservative numbers together, the math works out as follows:

Pedophile molesters 10% < 90% Nonpedophile molesters

Pedophiles 20% < 80% Nonpedophiles

10/20 is then the proportion of pedophile molesters to pedophiles relative to the figure 90/80 that represents nonpedophile molesters to nonpedophiles

10/20 = .5 < 1.125 = 90/80

The proportion thus is 1 to 2.25, making a given nonpedophile more than twice as likely to molest a child as a given pedophile.

MapleSyrup wrote:Are we "playing victims"?

Why can't we just answer all the questions openly, honestly and in simple, straightforward manner?
Thank you

You're getting straightforward answers. It's not our fault you perceive the truth as us being unreasonably defensive.

MapleSyrup wrote:Are we "playing victims"?

Why can't we just answer all the questions openly, honestly and in simple, straightforward manner?
Thank you

You asked about the differences between predators and pedophiles and you got answers directly in response to those questions. What do you want me to say? One group preys on children and one does not. That is all. Now you're saying that I'm "playing victim" by pointing out the differences that you asked for.

Are you suggesting that:
1) you are targeted unfairly by the society and authorities?
2) Enforcement authorities should leave the matter/ forget it/ignore it and let it go randomly?
It means authorities in this case would react to the crime after it happened. Authorities should not take any measure to prevent crimes before it happened?

Just be relaxing when you read and answer. I have noticed that most of you are subconsciously defensive but live in denial.

MapleSyrup wrote:Are you suggesting that:
1) you are targeted unfairly by the society and authorities?
2) Enforcement authorities should leave the matter/ forget it/ignore it and let it go randomly?
It means authorities in this case would react to the crime after it happened. Authorities should not take any measure to prevent crimes before it happened?

Just be relaxing when you read and answer. I have noticed that most of you are subconsciously defensive but live in denial.

1) People are hysterical about the notion of an adult being attracted to a child. People seem to think they have carte blanche to say or do anything they want to a person who (through no choice of his/her own) happens to be attracted to children. People do not take the time to understand the real threats, thereby doing children a disservice in the name of servicing and preserving their comfort-zone-bolstering bogeyman myths.

I feel that if someone has broken a law, then the appropriate punitive measures are due, taking into account any aggravating or mitigating factors. However, I do feel that there has been an insidious tendency within legislation, sentencing guidance and case law towards persecuting those who have an attraction to minors (inc. pubescent minors). To take one example, it used to be the case in England and Wales that a person could be convicted of possessing CP if caught with 'indecent' images (the term stemming from child protection legislation). Case law in the past decade or so has added the phrase 'erotic posing' (to qualify as a so-called level one image). These are qualities of the image. However, it appears that people are being sentenced for having collections of images that are not indecent and do not feature erotic posing, where the quantity of images is deemed to be indicative of a morbid sexual interest in children. If this is true, then this constitutes persecution on the grounds of sexuality. A second example is to be found here. I won't go into detail, as it's late and I want to get to bed, and the article explains all. A third example is that hate speech legislation (again, in England and Wales) has been extended to cover hate speech on the grounds of sexual orientation, but the definition given is a very narrow one based on what sex one is attracted to. A paedophile, necrophile, gerontophile, etc. will therefore find themselves not covered by the legislation, though the charge of common assault is still open to prosecutors.

2) Prevention is preferable, yes, but until you (and society) start to properly appreciate the nature of the threat, you're not going to prevent anything. You stated earlier that 10% (of child molestors being paedophiles) was a big number; it's nowhere near as big a number as 90%. And that's the issue. 90% of child molestors are not paedophiles, and that's something society needs to get to grips with. Furthermore, though sexual predators in white vans do exist and do abduct kids and rape them (or worse), they're exceedingly rare, and the vast majority of child molestation cases involve ostensibly benign human beings much closer to home: an uncle, a friend of the family, or someone in a position of trust directly involved with the child/child's family. If you want to prevent child molestation, understand the nature of the problem.

-- Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:12 pm --

sprooglestrewft wrote:Some one can fantasize about consensual sex with a child while believing that sex can never be consensual with a real child or cannot happen without huge risks. It is very different than fantasizing about rape. It is more comparable to someone fantasizing about making consensual love to a mentally impaired person. Pedophilia is a an unfortunately directed attraction, it is not the desire to harm the innocent.

Angelina Jolie is completely out of my league. So much so that the only way I could have sex with her in real life would be to force her, coerce her, drug her or suchlike. In other words, I would have to rape her. If I fantasize about having my preferred type of sex (mutually enjoyed, romantic, passionate fun) with Angelina Jolie, is that therefore a rape fantasy? (Question obviously directed at MapleSyrup.)

ctithe wrote:Angelina Jolie is completely out of my league. So much so that the only way I could have sex with her in real life would be to force her, coerce her, drug her or suchlike. In other words, I would have to rape her. If I fantasize about having my preferred type of sex (mutually enjoyed, romantic, passionate fun) with Angelina Jolie, is that therefore a rape fantasy? (Question obviously directed at MapleSyrup.)

Angelina Jolie is not a child. Blacks are not children. So the comparison is out of range. You are Children are children. struggling in your defence.

and BTW: 10% is huge number when you count the whole population of pedophiles in a society. Even 1% is enough to commit outrageous crimes.

MapleSyrup, you've just deliberately skipped over the point of Ctithe's Jolie analogy, and it's looking increasingly like you're just not prepared to be reasonable with certain people here.

I'm not a paedophile, and I don't like child molesters any more than you do, but the people you're taking pops at here aren't any more to blame for child abuse than the majority of straight men are to blame for the crimes of, say, Peter Sutcliffe.

In all sexual orientations, there are abusive people. A sexual orientation in itself is not an indicator of an individual's humanity. I know you understand this, but you seem to believe that society's prejudice against paedophiles entitles you to put the boot in anyway. Well, not on this forum it doesn't. As you've been told, child molesters are not necessarily paedophiles, so I'd suggest redirecting your incriminations simply to abusive people rather than continually lambasting non-abusive people on here who have come here because it's supposed to be a support forum.

Thank you.

MapleSyrup wrote:Angelina Jolie is not a child. Blacks are not children. So the comparison is out of range. You are Children are children. struggling in your defence.

So, you don't understand how analogies work.

MapleSyrup wrote:
and BTW: 10% is huge number when you count the whole population of pedophiles in a society. Even 1% is enough to commit outrageous crimes.

And you don't understand how math works.

MapleSyrup wrote:[Angelina Jolie is not a child. Blacks are not children. So the comparison is out of range. You are Children are children. struggling in your defence.

Sorry, it should read:

Children are children. You are struggling in your defence.


-- Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:30 pm --

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

MapleSyrup wrote:Angelina Jolie is not a child. Blacks are not children. So the comparison is out of range. You are Children are children. struggling in your defence.

So, you don't understand how analogies work.

MapleSyrup wrote:
and BTW: 10% is huge number when you count the whole population of pedophiles in a society. Even 1% is enough to commit outrageous crimes.

And you don't understand how math works.

I started this new thread for the benefit of all, pedophiles or non-pedo.
I am not biased at all but I am with proper law enforcement, either on child molestors or any different crime.
I understand statistics and math very well in the acdemic science world. However, ONLY one person (just one not 1%) as a child molestor Pedophile is risk to society.

YouthRightsRadical: I am familiar with your stupid abrupt responses. So your responses are not of value here.

MapleSyrup wrote:I started this new thread for the benefit of all, pedophiles or non-pedo.

And have you found it helpful?

MapleSyrup wrote:
I am not biased at all but I am with proper law enforcement, either on child molestors or any different crime.

Then you'll agree with the FBI statistics that demonstrate that pedophiles aren't who you should be worrying about molesting kids.

MapleSyrup wrote:
I understand statistics and math very well in the acdemic science world. However, ONLY one person (just one not 1%) as a child molestor Pedophile is risk to society.

But if a nonpedophile like you molests kids, there's no problem at all, right?

MapleSyrup wrote:
YouthRightsRadical: I am familiar with your stupid abrupt responses. So your responses are not of value here.

Or more accurately, you can't actually come up with an answer to what I've said, so you dismiss my arguments and hope no one notices.

I think we're arguing with the taxi driver discussed here.