Ratios of abusive people in different sexual orientations

I think we've established by now that child abusers are not necessarily paedophiles, but inevitably society will refer to anyone who abuses a child as a 'paedophile', when actually they're more likely to be a 'perfectly straight' friend or relative, acting opportunistically.

Similarly, although not as regularly reported in the media, anyone who abuses a dead person will be regarded as a necrophile.

Quite frankly, I think there's a breed of abusive people out there who are simply opportunists, who will prey on whoever happens to be vulnerable. It's about power, or dominance, or something like that. It's not related to the feelings that most people from all orientations have for whoever they're sexually attracted to, and I don't think ratios of abusive people differ much from orientation to orientation. Necrophiles and paedophiles however, are going to take the flack for many crimes of opportunist predators, who find children and the deceased vulnerable.

Take Jimmy Savile. That bastard's growing list of crimes are now known to have included acts of necrophilia, so he's now known as both a paedophile and a necrophile - but I honestly don't think he should be regarded as either. What he was, was a predator. Pure and simple. He preyed on whoever he believed wasn't able to resist him. He didn't look at his victims and think: "I like him/her..." He thought in terms of having power over them and what he could get away with.

I know this will fall on deaf ears in most places other than this forum, but the propensity to sexually abuse another human being has got to be separated from the attractions that people have. Nobody seriously suggests that all straight heterosexual men are like, say, Peter Sutcliffe, yet paraphiles have to put up with mud thrown at us because some opportunist predators, who don't necessarily share our attractions, have found the type of people we like in vulnerable situations and have abused them simply because they can.

No words required just a simple picture paints a thousand words.

I'd never abuse a dead person. I'm not that callous. I've got far too much respect, and then there's a little thing called 'caring', which seems absent from some people's sexual natures. For me, I have to really like someone to be sexually attracted to them, and I couldn't do anything that would be wrong to them.

It seems to me that abusive people have something missing, or maybe something back to front in their minds?

To me, it makes sense that most humans are designed to care for whoever they're sexually attracted to, and then in turn care for any children that come along as a result. That would be how family groups formed, going right back to when our ancestors were covered in hair and running around on all fours.

There is a theory I've read, that going right back to pre-human times, there were always a few lone males who didn't stick to groups, and it was these individuals who kept the genepool circulating by going around shagging (raping?) women from different communities. These blokes obviously weren't ruled by any sense of 'caring' in their heads, and it makes me wonder if there's an 'abusive gene' that might one day be identified, that might even lead to some form of treatment?

Graveyard76 wrote:There is a theory I've read, that going right back to pre-human times, there were always a few lone males who didn't stick to groups, and it was these individuals who kept the genepool circulating by going around shagging (raping?) women from different communities. These blokes obviously weren't ruled by any sense of 'caring' in their heads, and it makes me wonder if there's an 'abusive gene' that might one day be identified, that might even lead to some form of treatment?

This is an interesting theory. It definitely deserves to be researched more.

I think a lot of human behaviours can be understood better if we remember that society is a relatively new thing, and it really wasn't that long ago that we were just an advanced animal.

We're mammals, and a lot of the ways in which our minds work can be observed across the board of mammals that operate in social structures. I'm not just talking about primates. I used to work in a dog rescue centre, and I used to put dogs that mixed with each other out in the same paddock together.

It was fascinating to watch them form their social structures, establishing friendships, pecking orders etc. We really are not so different from our four legged cousins as we like to think we are.

Graveyard76 wrote:We really are not so different from our four legged cousins as we like to think we are.

I agree. We're animals too, after all, although we possess reason and language, which is the only thing that distinguishes us from other animals.

In our general behaviour, yes. Alright, we've come a long, long way with technologies, philosophies etc, but socially and psychologically, I don't think we're very different from the standard mammal norms. If anything, we've possibly gone a bit backwards in our recent history in terms of how we treat each other, but I do believe in humanity to pick itself up and aspire to improve on itself in the long run.

EDIT: That last bit sounds a bit 'Star Trek'!

We're also naive enough to think that as we get older and more mature that we will respect others, but if you go into certain workspaces there is bullying, in all levels of society. I have personally heard about bullying among staff members in schools, sailors, graphic designers, academia, volunteer organisations, and I am sure it is everywhere else.

The reasons paraphilia especially gets a bad rap is because the only time you hear about it in the media is when it is associated to crime. People don't want to think about good and bad and the grey areas in between when it is much easier to have a clear-cut image of who to hate.

To even begin to get those numbers you would first have to pin down how many of X orientation there are. Look at how the percentages and even definitions of basic homosexuality can't be agreed upon. I've heard everything from under 10% all the way to "everyone's a little bit gay".
I can't see getting more accurate numbers for the more atypical types.