Pedophilia - childhood abuse or not?

GinaSmith wrote: Assuming Michael Jackson was a paedophile, then is it not possible that paedophilia can stem not just from sexual abuse but any kind of feeling of loss of childhood? I mean, he was forced to work very hard on his music, and I think his father was 'physically strict' at the very least. I'm making an assumption about his sexuality, but it strikes me that paedophilia could be accompanied by some strong sense of loss associated with unresolved non-sexual desires in the past, such as the desire to play rather than be worked into the ground. One might subsequently go on to find attractive those very qualities one felt one wasn't allowed to have.

If anyone has any doubts about Michael Jackson's sexuality, Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons will clear them up rather quickly.

This book is an examination of ALL the friendships with boys that MJ was known to have had. It is extremely well documented (900+ footnotes!) and has been endorsed by five leading academics including Richard Green.

Watch the trailer for it, then read the book.

What do I mean by abuse? I'm kind of using the loosest sense of the word here.

If I were to go more into what abuse is when I use the word , I'm referring to: cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal that is not consensual. violent treatment involving sexual assault, possibly repeatedly. to assault sexually or physically, where the victim has not consented to the sexual activity. rape, or a crime committed where one party literally forces another party to engage in sexual intercourse through the use of violence, or through physically disabling the victim with drugs, or any other of the many possible means that a person could force another into sex. also emotional abuse, more clearly psychological abuse, which is characterized by one person exposing another to behavior that may result in psychological trauma (a good example of this is bullying, which can be a lot of things from mild intimidation to physical harm).

I'm not saying that if an adult woman decides to get intoxicated and then take on a group of several of men in the bed that she is then being raped or anything. However, I certainly would say the men could be taking advantage of her because she is intoxicated. To me taking advantage of another person lies in the same boat with abuse/rape/etc., though it's essentially a different entity. It can be severe or minor, depending on the situation, as I believe that considering an incident abuse/rape/etc. or "a taking advantage of scenario" is highly dependent on the situation.

Just throwing out some ages here: If a twelve year old was asked by a twenty five year old to have sex, and that twelve year old agreed, wanted to have sex with the twenty five year old, and said he/she understood the consequences and responsibilities that came with having sex, and those two people ended up having sex, it wouldn't really fit my definition of abuse, no.

But this does not mean that the twenty five year old wouldn't be able to use negative or deleterious means to gain the consent of the twelve year old, such as manipulating or "taking advantage" of the twelve year old's possible lack of knowledge of the subject of sex, or through taking advantage of any other quality that could come with the twelve year old's possible stage of development, where the twelve year old might not have the tools or required development achieved in their mind/brain to rationally or genuinely make the decision to have sex. What I would call this, I'm not exactly sure.

It could be considered "taking advantage" (that same separate entity as before) of the twelve year old, but this is where things get a little blurry. Because every individual develops physically/mentally at different rates/speeds, it's difficult to pinpoint exactly if it'd be abuse or not, or if there'd be any "taking advantage" going on.

And to show you where my last statement, "... effects from having been abused at any age have been shown to potentially linger throughout a person's entire life, especially if left unaddressed" comes from. It's mainly post-traumatic stress disorder I'm referring to here. "Effects from having been abused," as I loosely stated above, "at any age have been shown to potentially linger throughout a person's entire life, especially if left unaddressed." What I'm saying here is that abuse induced PTSD (or any other abuse induced psychological trauma or illness) illustrates how these effects have the possibility to linger throughout a lifetime, especially if left unaddressed. Causing more problems. Making things worse and not healthy and functioning for that individual.

True, these effects may go away on their own, but I don't believe this is very likely. The effects of abuse lingering through people's lives has been demonstrated by the many people that have been abused and have sought therapy, counseling, and support in various places, including this site. The abuse forum is one of the most active forums on this site, among other psychology boards, and many people have confessed there about being abused and how the effects have followed them throughout their lives, some effects following individuals for a striking amount of years.

And this is just on this site - I can also consider the many cases of abuse leading to life long troubles or lingering effects that aren't described here. Of course there's the fact that some of these reported cases aren't genuine or true, rather imagined or created, but if one is open to considering those that are imagined and created, one must also be open to those that are quite possibly real and actual.

And it's not even PTSD alone. Because mental illness can be caused by both physical and psychological factors, abuse can plant a seed for many, many mental illnesses and issues.

Yet abuse has been brought up again - the very sticky subject. What fascinates me about any kind of abuse is how different people's views are on it. They can be so widely diverse to actually mirror and contrast each other in the most identical and the most contradicting and diverging of hues.

Shrink Rap, you've encouraged me to support my statements more than once on these threads, and I like that. In one light, I feel you are doing so in a positive and genuinely responsive manner, but in another, I feel you are unwilling to consider others people's posts as what they are meant to be taken as, and find them as weak, unsupported statements and arguments with no logic or responsible thought behind them. I feel what you respond with is both pleasant and critically advocating. Like I said once before, I am in no way attempting to attack you. I am just simply expressing how I feel in hopes to reach an understanding.

You'd be a good lawyer, Shrink Rap, but I feel that sometimes I'm in a court of law when faced with some of your responses. I don't want debate, questioning or anything of the sort to be banded, so to speak, but I feel a more comfortable discussion and support environment can be instilled into this site.

Wow, perhaps that last bit should have been posted in the "what do you want from this forum" or whatever it's called thread. Also, I'm eager to look into the source you posted, Shrink Rap. It seems it would have a lot of valuable information to answer some of the questions I've had about Mr. Jackson, as I've always been curious about this.

I really shouldn't be so dour. I'm not always this way in real life, I promise! I just might come off this way because of how I'm able to think out what I'm responding with a lot longer than in real life, and this intimidates me, honestly.

encephalo wrote:Shrink Rap, you've encouraged me to support my statements more than once on these threads, and I like that. In one light, I feel you are doing so in a positive and genuinely responsive manner, but in another, I feel you are unwilling to consider others people's posts as what they are meant to be taken as, and find them as weak, unsupported statements and arguments with no logic or responsible thought behind them. I feel what you respond with is both pleasant and critically advocating. Like I said once before, I am in no way attempting to attack you. I am just simply expressing how I feel in hopes to reach an understanding.

You'd be a good lawyer, Shrink Rap, but I feel that sometimes I'm in a court of law when faced with some of your responses. I don't want debate, questioning or anything of the sort to be banded, so to speak, but I feel a more comfortable discussion and support environment can be instilled into this site.

Wow, perhaps that last bit should have been posted in the "what do you want from this forum" or whatever it's called thread. Also, I'm eager to look into the source you posted, Shrink Rap. It seems it would have a lot of valuable information to answer some of the questions I've had about Mr. Jackson, as I've always been curious about this.

I really shouldn't be so dour. I'm not always this way in real life, I promise! I just might come off this way because of how I'm able to think out what I'm responding with a lot longer than in real life, and this intimidates me, honestly.

Not a good lawyer, enc, but a good scientist and therapist. A scientist must engage in critical thinking. It has often been the case that something that "everybody knows" was wrong when subjected to scientific scrutiny.

On an individual level, people often do not see the irrationality of their ideas until it is pointed out to them. The good therapist does not merely say "you are wrong" or "irrational;" he questions his client so that he will come to that conclusion himself. This results in a healthy restructuring of one's ego and a decrease in anxiety and is the best method of support I can offer.

People can have all kinds of thoughts, feelings, fantasies, or irrational ideas in their heads. How can one tell if the idea is merely in one's head or if it actually exists in the external world? One must test one's idea for confirmatory evidence. This "reality testing" process is intact in non-psychotic people and lacking in psychotics.

Sorry, but I am not very interested in people's mere opinions or ideas unsupported by objective evidence, e.g. you might say the world is flat because you can see it; just go to the roof of a building or the top of a hill and look. It's obvious isn't it? Not only that, all your friends tell you the world is flat. Nonetheless, I will be polite and feign interest while pointing out that there is evidence to the contrary which I urge you to look at.

I feel you are unwilling to consider others people's posts as what they are meant to be taken as, and find them as weak, unsupported statements and arguments with no logic or responsible thought behind them.

But how do you know for sure how they are meant to be taken? I like to be sure I understand someone, so if I am only 99% sure of what they mean, i will ask about the 1% just to be sure. I was recently accused of making a joke about someone when I did that. I wasn't. Maybe I am a bit obsessive that way, but I certainly am considering the 99%.

^ It's perfectly reasonable to ask, of course. Clarity is key when it comes to discussion on a site like this. And it's wise to consider that the majority (the 99%) and to ask about that last percentage. Something I like to keep in mind, though, is that people can't be accurately understood with just reasoned percentages. I also agree with a lot of what you've written in your last post on this thread, and have held the some of the same beliefs and views for a while now, regarding psychology, "reality testing," being a scientist and therapist and all that jazz. It's great that you consider all these factors when discussing various subjects on the board, as they are methods and concepts that help the daily dialogue come along versus circling or trailing off.

However, a vibe I'm basically getting from you is that you ask for clarity, sure, and once that clarity is given with support and argument, you simply dismiss those supported views that are different from your own as partially or utterly defective or flawed compared to your own. That or you just return with more suggestions or urges that there is contradicting evidence. Reminder: this is a vibe I'm getting, or how you come off to me sometimes, and in no way am I trying to state that you are this way indeed. I don't know exactly why, but I sometimes have trouble understanding what attitudes people are trying to convey in their writing on discussion forums like this. There could be a number of reasons for this.

To be frank, I'm not even trying to say that responding with an attitude such as this is something I'm against--"...I will be polite and feign interest while pointing out that there is evidence to the contrary which I urge you to look at." What I'm really concerned with is how the nature of this attitude in responding is handled. Generally, I've found you to be quite civil, though at times, I dare say, insisting. There is nothing wrong with sticking to your guns, but shooting holes into every contrasting view or take on a discussion with "bullets" from those guns is another story. Not always an inhibiting factor, and certainly not always an understanding one.

From what I've gathered, this is a support site above all. While I believe there's plenty of room for debate, research and like things, cordial discussion and solace are a couple of the primary goals I've got the impression of from visiting this site. I believe we can all work together to create a positive, welcoming online environment here. If that means taking another look at how we come off to others, I feel it's important to do so.

Coming back to this actual thread--I believe we should gear further discussion towards what it's intended to be about - "Pedophilia - childhood abuse or not" and like conversation.

If you want to talk to me more about what we've been going on a tangent about here, I'd be more than happy to do so through personal messaging on the site. I feel I have a better understanding of what I wanted to grasp about you, but there's always time and space to explore more. I love talking (or typing, more literally) with people on here. Obviously. I can't post without going on an on, almost... Apologies to anyone that's offended by this tangent I've participated in. I in no way meant to hijack anything. Also, apologies for the potential lack of proper grammar in my posts. I tend to try and type how I'd talk in real life, as to sound more natural and less...robotic.