Thread: Hell: Internet Child Porn-Hundreds Arrested Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000161
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 
Well, now we know as if we didn't already. What does the net truly reveal to us-loads of interesting sights with heaps of information and discussions ? Travel tips? Weather forecasts? Chat Rooms full of fascinating individuals sharing their deepest and most philosophical of reflections? A true community of postmodern individuals?

Not a bit of it. What, seemingly, the net has revealed is to the extent to which the abuse of children and child pornography is the leisure activity of choice of hundreds of male, middle class professionals unknown to the police before now. Many, if not most, happily 'married', under the illusion that their discreet, private little suburban, respectable could safely hold such nasty, nasty, secrets.

Their cover has been blown, Thank God. I do hope, too, that all of us think a little more carefully as to who are truly perverted and how we identify them and a lot more carefully about notions about the 'Family' and Christian 'Morality'. It is behind the seemingly respectable that we often discover the truly demonic. [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

[ 10. March 2003, 00:45: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on :
 
I agree, but am curious. Is this related to a news item of which I haven't heard?
 
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Arch-, please can you provide a link, if this is a news story to which you are referring? If it's a rant, then please indicate this. And possibly expand - posters round here just hate having to give half-baked opinions 2/5ths of a story [Wink]

Viki, hellhost
 
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 
Sorry, I assumed everyone would have heard the BBC News this evening. Literally hundreds of people which the Police specifically mentioned as middle class professionals without any previous connections have been arrested and tons and tons of downloaded material seized. In the Midlands I believe. Hilary Benn, the Home Office Minister, rolled out to comment on the fact that whereas the Police have loads of resources to target Street Crime, the Police feel overwhelmed and under-funded to deal with the level of Internet child porn they are discovering.
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
This might refer to the story in question.

On a cursory reading, it seems to be an appeal for more funds so the police can arrest numerous more paedophiles, rather than absolute proof they are 'out there'.
 
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
This might refer to the story in question.

On a cursory reading, it seems to be an appeal for more funds so the police can arrest numerous more paedophiles, rather than absolute proof they are 'out there'.
Do you really doubt that they are 'out there' ?
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
i kinda' liked this quote from that article:

quote:
Thomas Reedy, who ran the website and made millions from it, is now serving a sentence of 1,335 years.

1,335 years. think he'll make it to his release date? [Devil]
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
i kinda' liked this quote from that article:

quote:
Thomas Reedy, who ran the website and made millions from it, is now serving a sentence of 1,335 years.

1,335 years. think he'll make it to his release date? [Devil]
Hopefully and then he'll get what's coming to him.

In my former existence, I had to advise a company defending an unfair dismissal suit brought by an employee sacked for storing pornographic material on the company's servers and then forwarding it on to his friends. This latter act involved the company in potential liability under the Obscene Publications Act.

I had to wade through the entire list of URLs which this person had visited during work hours - a mix of naughty schoolgirl sites and sad streaming porn videos - in order to verify that they did indeed fall within the definition of porn and thus were a serious breach of the company's computer use policy justifying sacking. They were and it did - and the newly admitted male solicitor from my firm's Employment group who watched the whole process was both fascinated and repelled.

For my part, if I had ever an interest in porn I lost it somewhere around porn website number 184. The worst part was e-mailing the firm's national IT manager to warn him that I was about to commit multiple breaches of my firm's computer use policy in the name of fee-earning work.
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arch-:
Do you really doubt that they are 'out there' ?
I know a lot of paedophiles who are inside as I worked with them for over a year. And I know the frustration of those who deal with this issue day in and day out that once their sentences are done they will be out in the world to offend again and again.

I also know the frustration of doing child protection courses with lay ministers and ordinands who like to see the offenders as 'out there' and not potentially in their churches. Comments like 'well a lot of children make it up' and 'it may not be as abd as the parents say' and 'you have to remember you are a pastor to the offender as well' in response to a pretty typical case study made me despair.

However I still think that the actual story I found on the BBC website after I read your OP reads like an attempt by the police to shock the public into pressuring for more resources.

Nothing wrong with that but I hope it pressures a few church leaders, councils etc into believing the problem is not conveniently located 'out there' but may well be dear old Mr Z in the choir who some of the parents are a bit abrupt with for some reason they can't understand.

[Standard code problem. Folks, you really don't need two [quote] tags.]

[ 13. November 2002, 00:03: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
Maybe this thread should go to Dead Horses right away, because i think this is a classic issue.
Here's why i think that:
There is a group of Christian psychologists on the radio, who (for my money) are the most insightful of any people i have ever been exposed to.
The 4 main ones are male, and one of the main foci of their ministry is what they call "Every Man's Battle", & of course, it's about pornography.
I don't hear any secular counselors who even see this as an issue worth addressing. Many see porn as almost a healthy alternative (I guess to repression, marital "actual" cheating, rape or abuse or whatever).

My respect for these men just went through the roof, to hear them speaking a truth which is so foreign to the modern mythology.

I am actually the opposite of a prude, & many people defend porn in the name of anti-prudery. I think porn is actually just another symptom of widespread immaturity and alienation from flesh-and-blood people - Yes, women most definitely have the problem, too - it's addictive.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I do think it is all really awful. However, I do just wonder whether every one of these men in the Midlands (and in other areas which haven't been investigated yet) really are all paedophiles, or are some curious to have a look at what is readily available? My guess is that they are rather naive, probably not the sort to have actively sought out such material in the past, but not being intelligent (or thinking) enough to realise that by their very curiosity they are feeding the situation as it provides an incentive for the real abusers to abuse even more children to provide the material. This applies whether it is teenage girls or boys and young children.

I suppose the cut-off point is whether they have downloaded loads of material. The idle curiosity user would just log on and look up the sites, whereas the committed members would download and pay for material. I suggest the police concentrate on the worst offenders and hope this scares off the petty dabblers from doing so in the future.
 
Posted by The one & only Nanny Ogg (# 1176) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I do think it is all really awful. However, I do just wonder whether every one of these men in the Midlands (and in other areas which haven't been investigated yet) really are all paedophiles, or are some curious to have a look at what is readily available?
I would rather them be investigated than allow paedohiles to slip through the net because some do gooder thinks that they were just being "curious".

quote:
I suppose the cut-off point is whether they have downloaded loads of material. The idle curiosity user would just log on and look up the sites, whereas the committed members would download and pay for material.
Many paedophiles just look rather than download because in paying for the material they leave themselves open to being caught.

Also, what type of material do you class as child porn? Paedophiles collect any photos of children which may fuel their fantasies. This may include nude or sexual pictures, but can easily be of children in swimwear, school uniform or even normal clothes. Where do you draw the line?

quote:
I suggest the police concentrate on the worst offenders and hope this scares off the petty dabblers from doing so in the future.
The problem is in differentiating between the petty dabblers and serious offenders. What may appear on the surface as insignificant browsing may well hide a deeper problem.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Chorister,

The story seems to suggest that all those arrested have been traced through credit card details. That doesn't suggest someone stupidly satisfying their curiosity to me.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I am mostly inclined to agree with you all. Probably part of me just doesn't want to accept that so many people are involved in this. As a mother, the thought is very scary.

I still believe though that there is a question of degree - there are some people in it much deeper than others. Hopefully the people who are not in it very deep yet will stop, but those who already are need to be identified and caught quickly - very hard when, as already seen in the Soham case, some of the culprits are also police officers.
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
I used to work on a sexual offenders unit, and have some familiarity with the literature, but would not present myself as any authority. I do have a bit to add.

Of course wolves hide in sheep's clothing. It doesn't do any good to hide in wolf's clothing, does it? Remember this before being shocked at the church members and scout leaders you hear about. We are a magnet for molesters.

I am very discouraged about all attempts at treatment of this population. Cure, I think, is out of the question. Ongoing treatment has some small success, but almost always with the milder offenders. There are broad categories of offenders, but the treatment for each is only a bit different. A sincere desire to get better, as manifested by actually inconveniencing oneself, is rare. When DSO's say they want treatment but refuse accountability, I am reminded of Jesus's statement about plucking out an eye. These guys won't even pluck out an eyebrow.
 
Posted by Willyburger (# 658) on :
 
locigian,

As one who once worked with the victims of pedophiles, your post saddens me deeply. Where is room for the forgiveness that Christ preached when the little ones continue to be at risk?
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Every single one of us has weaknesses.

My temptations are other women even though I'm happily married. Its something I have to work hard to avoid, particularly as I often come into contact with divorced women who I know are desperate for a man or anyone to hug them.

These men who have found child porn on the internet probably would never have thought of it before.

They probably wouldn't be seen dead in a 'Sex Shop' and probably wouldn't have ever thought of even touching a child.

Now they have found their weakness, they have moved very much further into dangerous ground.

Maybe all that is needed is for the Police to inform them that they 'know about' their internet activities.

Sending them to prison is not a solution.

However I agree these sites are dangerous and if possible they need jamming or shutting down.

Similarly there are sites which encourage gambling and tell people how to grow and use cannabis.

All humans are naturally curious and its curiousity, they say, that killed the cat.

The Chinese don't like the internet because it harbours dangerous new political thoughts.

Muslim states don't like it because the Christian Bible is now freely available.

The first sin in The Bible was that of curiousity and to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

It seems that that is a very good description of the Internet.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Just a further comment.

It is exceptionally easy to get someone's credit card details from a discarded slip etc which gives expiry date, name and number.

You can even make them up based on your own cards.

Then someone types them in on an Internet Porn Site (maybe even your own children) and lo and behold, a few months later the Police arrest you for child pornography.

Moral. Always check your credit card statements very, very carefully because Porn Sites Company Names are not always easily recognisable.
 
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Every single one of us has weaknesses.

These men who have found child porn on the internet probably would never have thought of it before.

They probably wouldn't be seen dead in a 'Sex Shop' and probably wouldn't have ever thought of even touching a child.

Similarly there are sites which encourage gambling and tell people how to grow and use cannabis.

All humans are naturally curious and its curiousity, they say, that killed the cat.

To compare the deliberate and systematic downloading of child pornography with sites for growing cannabis or defending the practice as just part of natural human curiosity is unbeleivably stupid and crass. Each image of a child is a child who is being abused and psychologically destroyed. People who download such images are child abusers. Police have found not one or two images but thousands on each computer-men who through the internet contact other men with similar 'tastes'. Many begin to plan together the production of their own 'libraries' of images, begin, in other words, to continue the cycle of abuse with other children, sometimes even their own.

If your understanding of these men is that they are just naturally curious, just as you are naturally curious about other women, then, frankly, I really do not know what to say. [Mad]

{Crass UBB code and double post sorted out.}

[ 14. November 2002, 09:05: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Child abuse was a joke 20 years ago, 'Carry On' type films always making fun of 'funny' Scout Masters or Vicars. But it was funny because everyone knew what the joke alluded to and that there was a great deal of truth in it. I can't remember anyone speaking out about 'child abuse' then so everyone is tarred with the brush of acceptance.

But I can assure you that 'hugging' a married woman or taking cannabis can lead to just as much pain as child abuse.

If you disagree maybe we should draw a hierarchy of sins ? eg Murder 10, Rape/Child Abuse 9, Knee Capping/Adultery 8, Stabbing/Wounding 7, Buglary 6, Phone Mugging 5, Graffiti 3 etc.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I can see what GH is trying to say, but I do believe that any crime against a child is worse than a similar crime against an adult. It is all to do with power. There may be many adults who don't have equality of power and you may wish to include mentally handicapped (or whatever the PC term for this is now) within your definition, but there is no way that a child could have the same chance of resisting the attack as an adult could.
 
Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :
 
Gosh, it's just like Salem. Most of these people are completely harmless. Today's secular culture of serial step-parenting and failure to administer discpipline causes far more harm to "the kiddies" than looking at pictures.

I'd expect Christians to show a little more intelligence and compassion.
 
Posted by ChrisT (# 62) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Most of these people are completely harmless.
I don't have the words to respond to this, incredulous is the nearest I can get. But I know others will.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
> But I can assure you that 'hugging' a married woman or taking cannabis can lead to just as much pain as child abuse.

I really wonder what planet some of my shipmates live on sometimes. Committing adultery with an adult who invites your advances can in no way be compared to child abuse. A child is half your size. They are not physically or emotionally equipped to cope with what an adult may do to them. They may end up with internal injuries, they may end up terrified of strangers, and as a young adult unable to form worthwhile relationships for years. Are you seriously equating that with adultery?

> Gosh, it's just like Salem. Most of these people are completely harmless.

I don't care what anyone says, it is not normal to find children sexually attractive, and even looking at pictures of small children shows in my view some kind of unpleasant kink in their sexuality. Anyone who downloads hundreds of these pictures is not an innocent.
 
Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
Back in the 1970's an ex-policeman told me that in some parts of London incest was the 2nd most common crime - ususlly parent-child.

This kind of thing has always been going on, but as fewer and fewer activities become considered to be wrong there are less targets for those who want to appear morally superior to others to attack.

That's not to say that in the past sexual exploitation of children was more acceptable just that it was not singled out so much.

Desire for sex with a child is evil and virtually uncureable, but we should not get so obsessed about it that children get imprisioned at home (for their own protection of course)
 
Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :
 
Let's just subtly change that last post:

quote:
I don't care what anyone says, it is not normal to find other men sexually attractive, and even looking at pictures of other men shows in my view some kind of unpleasant kink in their sexuality. Anyone who downloads hundreds of these pictures is not an innocent.
Do you think closet homosexuals should be round up, impisoned or left to the fury of the mob? No?
See a flaw in your argument...

Wait, since this is a Christian talkboard, lets change that quote again:

quote:
I don't care what anyone says, it is not normal to find women other than your wife sexually attractive, and even looking at pictures of other women shows in my view some kind of unpleasant kink in their sexuality. Anyone who downloads hundreds of these pictures is not an innocent.
We're all guily Ariel
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Eleighteen,

If you're determined to troll, at least be subtle about it. Your attempts on this thread are particularly feeble.

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :
 
Actually Astro, child abuse is most commonly carried out by step-parents. Were it that the Church were so indignant of the damage wrecked by the permissive society...

Step"fathers" (i.e. this month's live-in-lover) in underclass homes are a far more real threat to children than a respectable chap, who releases the frustration of his desires with a guilty hand-shandy over some dodgy pics.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Back in my school days (1962) we had a school master who abused several boys (aged around 12/13). He was found out, dismissed, prosecuted and given a prison sentence of 6 months.

Nowadays he might be lucky to get 10 years. However doesn't this then make such a person want to 'get rid of the victim' ?

Children need protecting (by being made aware) and these adults (who usually have been abused themselves in the vicious cycle) need treatment.

In this witch hunt (yes it really is Salem) we have organisations which appear to want to protect children but publish the graphic details of abuse which are possibly designed to 'titillate', and IMO may well be encouraging the very abuse they porport to want to stop.

Let's remember than 90% of child abuse is within the family by step parents or step children.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
No - abusive step fathers are.

The consumer of the dodgy pictures is a real danger, because he creates the demand that others are fulfilling by producing these pictures.

And lets address something here - you can't find child porn just by typing the right terms into Google - you have to work at it, get the trust of an internet paedophile ring. If it was just typing "child sex picture" into Google, the police would find it a lot easier to find and close down the sites - and what search engine would index such sites anyway?
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
(crossed posts - the last was to eleighteen)
 
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 
The issue here is concensus isn't it?

There is a world of difference between a bloke getting his rocks off looking at a picture of a twenty-five year old woman pretending to suck a banana and that of a bloke getting his rocks off looking at a picture of a five year old girl pretending to suck a banana. The twenty-five year old woman has a choice (and yes, I know that many woman are forced into prostitution and porn and all of that but the vast majority of those who work in the so-called 'Adult' industry do it by choice) to do pose for that picture; the five year old has no choice.

In this way the viewer of such a picture cannot pretend that the girl is doing it because she wants to or that she knows what she (or he of course) is doing. The viewer of child pornography is complicit in the abuse of that child in a way it might be argued the viewer of adult (mainstream) porn is not.

It is not good enough to try to alter the language used about paedophiles to those of homosexuals or women or whatever. On the one hand we are dealing with adults towards whom we can make a pretty good attempt at persuading ourselves that they are doing this porn by choice and that they are being well paid for it. On the other are a group of kids.

Homosexuality isn't a disease that can be cured or a disease that is intrinsically about the abuse of non-consenting individuals. Paedophilia is.

Cosmo
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I am not sure whether eleighteen has thought through what the pictures portray. Many are not just pictures of a child, they are pictures of an adult abusing a child. If such adults know that there is a market for these pictures then they are going to abuse more children to get more pictures. Therefore everyone who looks at these pictures is feeding the habit and the abuse. I think the people who look at pictures probably fall into two categories - the idiots who look and don't think of the above ramifications, and the awful people who do know the ramifications and simply don't care (and maybe even actively encourage it).

Eleighteen's arguments remind me of a programme I saw on TV back in the summer, where the paedophile who was arrested spent all his time arguing against sexual mutilation of females, to try to turn attention away from his own awful crimes. You cannot justify child pornography by saying that there are other types of pornography on the Internet - that is no excuse!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Thank you, Cosmo, for saying what I had intended to say, but did not get the chance to post this afternoon. Of course it is about consensuality. I saw the same documentary as Chorister, I think - I know I was struck by the insistence the paedophile placed on deflecting attention from his own case by demanding that the police concentrate on cases of female circumcision instead - two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Posted by The one & only Nanny Ogg (# 1176) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Many are not just pictures of a child, they are pictures of an adult abusing a child.
Actually many photographs and pictures seized in polices raids are of children who are fully clothed. Others are of children in underwear, swimwear or school uniform. The men who "collect" them (often in their thousands) use them to stimulate sexual fantasies. There is nothing the police can do in these circumstances as it is all in the mind of the abuser.

quote:
If such adults know that there is a market for these pictures then they are going to abuse more children to get more pictures.
There is an internet trade between individuals usually through user groups. Most however are not paid for - they are simply photographs taken and shared between groups of people with similar peversions.

With the number of photographs found in any one paedophiles "collection" numbering in the thousands it takes an extremely long time to process any court case and convict them. In the mean time these people are free to carry on without much constraint (except perhaps bail terms). There is not even any restriction on them purchasing new computer equipment and being on the internet during this time, or any subsequent time should they recieve a non-custodial sentence.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
So what do we do about it then? We don't usually go round taking photos of our children in the nuddy (apart from maybe one obligatory 'baby in the bath' snap) but we cannot avoid ever having our children photographed on the offchance of them falling into the hands of some paedophile!

Surely the police are right to concentrate on the obvious offenders rather than those with pictures of children in school uniform?
 
Posted by coffee jim (# 3510) on :
 
Yes, it is disturbing to know that the smashing of a US child porn ring uncovered thousands (not hundreds) of UK users, including 90 cops. What we need to be asking is 'what can we do about it?'
Even as a non-Christian, the phrase 'there but for the grace of God go I' is a useful one when imagining the horror being a paedophile must be. Just imagine for a minute what it must be like to lust after people who cannot meaningfully consent, and to know that exposure of your orientation will result in social death at best. I'm glad I'm not in their shoes.
This is not to say that paedophiles are 'mostly harmless' or that they shouldn't be punished, but that all of them need support, however undeserving they may seem. The media tendency to conflate someone who masturbates over images of children with someone who drugs, rapes and strangles them doesn't help. What I feel is needed is a system whereby anyone who feels disturbed by their sexual desires can seek professional help in complete confidence, whether they have committed an offence or not. From what I have heard it is very, very hard to 'cure' a paedophile, so the earlier they seek help, the better.
It's here that some of the noblest Christian ideals, such as 'hating the sin but loving the sinner' and the idea that every individual is loved unconditionally by God, can really come into their own. An individual should not be condemned for finding children sexually attractive, or having hideous fantasies, but for participating (directly or indirectly) in the psychological and physical scarring of children. As far as I know, Christian groups such as the Quakers and Methodists have taken steps to support paedophiles who are committed to not (re-) offending, and I've heard some talk of a (government-backed?) initiative called Stop It Now (worrying acronym!) whereby those who feel attracted to children can contact a confidential helpline.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Cosmo is spot-on about being able to consent.

And just think what it must be like for an adult who has been abused as a child and had photographs taken of that - how would you feel if you knew pictures of yourself and your abuser were circulating, on hard copies or on the net?
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by coffee jim:
Even as a non-Christian, the phrase 'there but for the grace of God go I' is a useful one when imagining the horror being a paedophile must be. Just imagine for a minute what it must be like to lust after people who cannot meaningfully consent, and to know that exposure of your orientation will result in social death at best.
There is a fairly wide concensus among practising Christians that lust(= wanting someone for thier body, not who they are) is not a basic hunman need, and so it can be resisted, even though with difficulty. Also that the ideal is that it should be resisted, regardless of the difficulty.
 
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
from coffee jim:
quote:
Just imagine for a minute what it must be like to lust after people who cannot meaningfully consent, and to know that exposure of your orientation will result in social death at best. I'm glad I'm not in their shoes.
Jim, in my experience, it hasn’t worked like that. A pedophile in my family has recently been exposed & not criminally prosecuted. This is due to the fact that the abuser is a very high-status person (& arrogant, I might add), & the children’s parents, though willing to report to the police, were not willing to expose their children to a criminal court, given that the accused says the children are lying, & there was no physical evidence or bodily damage.
This man is my mother’s brother, & there are numerous reasons for me to believe that what the children said is true. However, rather than “social death”, most of my family has clamped the lid on any discussion of the subject, other than to express sympathy for my uncle as a "poor,sick man", & question the motives & family loyalty of those of us who believe the charges.
I am very much in favor of the programs, such as you mentioned by the Quakers, so that those who do acknowledge & regret the problem can get help - but the much more common scenario is their refusal to acknowledge the issue, or that they need help. They tend to be very arrogant, power-hungry, & socially retarded.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Eleighteen I suspect you had a brain transplant with a maggot since only one would equate homosexuality with paedophilia. I may have misunderstood your post if so be clearer so as to avoid coming across like a complete idiot.

Nightlamp
Hellhost
 
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
Let me get this straight:

A board fundie who rails against the evils of homosexuality is defending paedophiles in possession of child porn?

Stop now eleighteen, before you destroy the credibility of the board inerrantists by association.
 
Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :
 
Ignoring the personal abuse, I would like to clarify that I am not defending those found with child pornography, rather I am against the rabid witch-hunt against those accused of it.

Child "abuse" as a result of the permissive society (divorce, absent fathers etc. etc.) is a far, far more pressing problem than kiddy fiddlers.

I remember reading - I think Theodore Dalrymple - decry the hypocrisy of the mob attacking the van carrying a still innocent man after the Soham murders. Many of those present were probably guilty of all sorts of abuse (and would be too arrogant to recognise the fact). But hey, these people are monsters because of what they do to 'ver kids right? The absent, criminal father can feel morally superior and give these nonces what they deserve. Scum!

I would expect a Christian talkboard to perhaps take a differing view to the world, instead of taking on its twisted morals. Yes they must be stopped, but how about a bit of compassion for the protgonists?
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Hold on...these people have been found with child pornography, which they have paid for via credit cards.
That isn't a witch-hunt : that is the active purchase of child pornography and an example of a successful attempt to deal with it.
As Cosmo and others have said , consent and power over others is the main issue here.

I disagree with the sort of vigilantism which we have seen in Portsmouth etc. , and I do think there are genuine problems with some of the cases which involve events of 25 years ago or more, in terms of the safety of conviction.
But child abuse is a real problem, and most of it isn't carried out by furtive looking losers outside school gates, but within families, and by those known to the children - the victims are mostly girls, not that you would recognise that from the reporting of ths topic.

I think that eleighteen's comparisons are totally irrelevant, and as usual, a way of trying to be provocative and controversial.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
There is a fairly wide concensus among practising Christians that lust(= wanting someone for thier body, not who they are) is not a basic hunman need, and so it can be resisted, even though with difficulty. Also that the ideal is that it should be resisted, regardless of the difficulty.
[Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!] [Not worthy!]

Moo
 
Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Let me get this straight:

A board fundie who rails against the evils of homosexuality is defending paedophiles in possession of child porn?

Stop now eleighteen, before you destroy the credibility of the board inerrantists by association.
Interestingly, a certain evangelical with a ministry in comic books once wrote an interesting tract on this subject called "Lisa".

Sadly its' no longer available but a review can be found at http://www.chickcomics.com
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Garden Hermit, eleighteen, I will take a moment to remind you that there are victims of pedophiles posting on these boards. I have been the "victim", so to speak, of adultery. I guarantee that the damage done to me is completely non-existent compared to the pain and betrayal that these victims live with every day of their lives. Your apparent sympathy for pedophiles is frightening.

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
If you disagree maybe we should draw a hierarchy of sins ? eg Murder 10, Rape/Child Abuse 9, Knee Capping/Adultery 8, Stabbing/Wounding 7, Buglary 6, Phone Mugging 5, Graffiti 3 etc.
Actually, child abuse/molestation is a 262 on this particular scale.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
To draw up a hierarchy of sins and give them a weighting seems like a curiously cold-blooded way of dealing with real human emotions. I find this almost as disturbing as the premises of some of the arguments put forward here.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I dunno... what kind of "real human emotion" is involved in sticking your wick into some innocent six-year-old?
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
The "real human emotion" might be the realisation of the real guilt and real shame you were carrying because of the violation of a child or children you had committed.

And you would need to capitalise on that guilt and shame to change your behaviour.

Give the police and authorities information about where you got all the net porn from. Agree not to have access to the net. Give the authorities information about physically sexually abusing children.

Get out of any place where you have access to children or people who provide you with children or pictures of children.

Be open with your family about what you have done - otherwise it gets passed on. I don't mean that abused people go on to abuse others, but that family secrets often reoccur generationally.

Be prepared to make amends and compensate for what you have done.

Don't expect forgiveness. It's the abused person's right to give or withold forgiveness.
 
Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :
 
quote:
Your apparent sympathy for pedophiles is frightening.
These peopow, ver scam, the lowest of the low. I've got a capow of kiddies... ..yeh I see 'em Christmas, birfdays.. well ver wan, her muvver won't let me see her no more... ..anyway, one of nonces goes near my kids...
 
Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :
 
eleighteen, will you get a little sensitivity, for God's sake?

Being terminally stupid, you might've missed erin's comment. I'll repeat it. There are people who read these boards who are victims of child abuse.

We know we're all guilty. We know we all do bad things. Would you really say to a victim of child abuse "well, you know, you did take one too many cakes at dinner, so you're just as bad as that man really"

Theologically, we're all sinners... blah de blah de blah. Don't seem to recall Jesus putting theology above compassion, to be honest.
 
Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
quote:
Your apparent sympathy for pedophiles is frightening.
These peopow, ver scam, the lowest of the low. I've got a capow of kiddies... ..yeh I see 'em Christmas, birfdays.. well ver wan, her muvver won't let me see her no more... ..anyway, one of nonces goes near my kids...
Are you really comparing divorces/broken marriges to pedophilia?

you are the most insensitive person i have ever had the misfortune to come across...did you even read erin's post? there are people who have been abused on these boards How the fuck do you think they may feel after your comments?

What about people who've had a divorce, who don't see their kids?

Are you completly thick or just have your head completely stuck in you arse?

(and i very rearely write posts like this...see how much you have pidded me off?)
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Eleighteen (and to a lesser extent Garden Hermit),

I cannot believe a sentient being with half a brain and an ounce of compassion would post the kind of steamingly ingorent clap-trap that you both have posted here. It’s attitudes like yours that

A) Enable people to comfortably dismiss child abuse (and other sexual crimes) as “not really resulting in much suffering”

b) Discourage people from reporting such events because comments like yours just reinforce the feeling that no one will either take them seriously or do anything about it

c) Encourage people to continue to believe that child abusers are nasty old men in raincoats who smell bad rather than normal people that you may even * gasp * go to the pub with

d) Child abuse and the like only happens in nasty, lower class homes not nice middle class ones

e) That, somehow, a child brings it on themselves

And so the cycle continues ….

Jesus had a lot to say about sin and the nature of sin. He also had a lot to say about compassion and caring for others. And he also had a lot to say about children and what would happen to those who were bad to them.

And as Erin and Stoo have already said – there are people on these boards who have suffered the kind of abuse (either directly or indirectly as it’s something within their family) that you dismiss so lightly and continue to joke about even though you’ve been asked to stop You are a pieces of shit of the first order. And you should apologise before you clutter up the boards with anymore of your crap.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I dunno... what kind of "real human emotion" is involved in sticking your wick into some innocent six-year-old?
I didn't express myself very well. I was thinking more of the emotional reactions of the victims caused by the specified offences rather than what might be going through the mind of an offender. I could be wrong but I'd imagine that if anything, an offender would have rather a lack of emotion (except possibly anger) rather than a capacity for it.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
What really staggered me about the news reports was the numbers.

Apparently the CIA passed names of 7,500 offenders collected from internet data to the British police.

Think on that for a moment. the entire current prison population in the uk is around 70,000.

If the police catch and charge all these people the prision population will go up by 10%.

And that's just names collected through one website. You can pretty much garuntee that's scratching the surface.

Also, my betting would be that most of those 7,500 are not actually regular physical abusers of children. My reasoning being that some guy who is able to abuse his son/daughter at will has covert access to the real thing without risking detection getting pictures off the net.

The scale of the problem therefore becomes mind boggling.

I'm stunned by some of the things written on this thread. I find some of eleighteen's comments indefensible, yet at the same time, I share his concern that there is something deeply distressing about the demonisation and "get out the pitchforks" fervour that seems to surround child abuse.

I can't put my finger on why, and I confess to feeling it too, but it seems to me that in the secular world, child abuse is practically the only universally agreed upon "moral standard".

I find there to be something slightly odd about that. My feeling is that the devil is having a field day with child abuse on both sides of the fence. Hurt children, messed up evil abusers and self-rightous indignation of "respectable" citizens.

When you consider the recent revelation of the jessica and holly police officers being exposed as being involved in child porn, maybe you will see what I mean? It seems to be one area where the devil reigns supreme.

matt
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Erin, I'm joking about a 'register' of sins. No sin is better or worse than another.

I too have been a victim of adultery. My Dear John letter read ..

Dear Garden Hermit,

I'm sorry but I've left you. I've gone to live with X who is the father of our 2 year old Y. I'm sorry that you're not the father of Y like you thought. Your dinner's in the oven

.. which led to my seeing the inside of two mental hospitals. I know of several men who killed themselves when they had similar letters.

I am now happily re-married with twins so no sympathy please but the scar is still there.

But virtually all child abusers have been abused themselves. They too are victims. But I'm sure we agree we all wish to break this circle.

However I'm particularly worried about men, probably through guilt or maybe fear of discovery, kill their victims.

We've got a chance of healing an abused child, no chance with a dead one.

There are also a lot of 'child abusers' who through guilt phone organisations like the Samaritans (an anonymous listening service in the UK) to confess their sins.

They are often desperate to stop but we have no way of helping them in this country unless they've been through the courts.

This debate needs to be rational not witch-hunting if we are going to improve the situation.

Pax et Bonum
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Matt the Mad Medic wrote:

quote:
I'm stunned by some of the things written on this thread. I find some of eleighteen's comments indefensible, yet at the same time, I share his concern that there is something deeply distressing about the demonisation and "get out the pitchforks" fervour that seems to surround child abuse.
And I would agree with that. But if you want a discussion about why society demonises child abusers (and always has - a nonce has always been the lowest of the low in jails) then you need to start one in Purg. And choose your words very carefully. Rather than post stuff like this:

quote:
These peopow, ver scam, the lowest of the low. I've got a capow of kiddies... ..yeh I see 'em Christmas, birfdays.. well ver wan, her muvver won't let me see her no more... ..anyway, one of nonces goes near my kids...
[Roll Eyes] [Disappointed]

Tubbs

PS Trip trap
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Can I just add to my additional post, that I saw an article on Daytime Tv about major chain stores now stock "sexy" underwear (thongs and the like) for pre-teen girls?

And anyone who knows a pre teen kid knows they are crazy about the likes of Britney Spears. The girl who does videos in leather bondage singing "I'm a slave for you.....".

Then we have a society that gasps in mock horror at pregnant 12 year olds.....*hangs his head in dispair*

matt
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoo:
Being terminally stupid, you might've missed erin's comment. I'll repeat it. There are people who read these boards who are victims of child abuse.
I am one of them, and I know other shipmates who have been abused too.

I was abused by a 'family friend'. I was 12 years old at the time. It seriously effected my schoolwork, how I related to all males, my ability to trust people, my ability to accept love, my self-esteem, my self-image... Yet what happened to me was pretty much nothing in comparison to others. I have no idea how people who have suffered years of systematic abuse cope.

My hope is that people do not see the perpetrators of such crimes as being monsters. Monsters are creatures who do what they do because that is their natures. Child abusers are humans who choose to carry out these acts. They choose to do so because they get something from it. They are very dangerous people, they are very difficult to treat, and often re-offend. They should never be put in a position where they are near children or vulnerable people again.

I know that it isn't hellish, but I give my sincere thanks to all here who do their best to safeguard the safety of children, those who have worked with offenders, helped in prosecuting, or have worked with children and adults who have been so badly hurt.

I offer up a special prayer of thanks to the woman who listened to my sobs and tears as I talked with her about the abuse that I suffered. If it were not for her I very much doubt that I would be married, or have children. Thanks to her and all like her.

bb
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Good, GH, some rational points.

Not like me to agree with Matt TMM, but for once, (we'll leave aside differences as to what we think Old Nick is).

I agree there needs to be somewhere that people who find they have paedophilic desires, but do not wish to act upon them, yet fear they might, can turn. I think you've got an impossible situation - be lenient, and justice is undermined (and folk's anger and likelihood of vigilanteism increases); be severe, and you risk offenders taking unpleasant steps to hide their tracks.

Sorry. I have no solutions.
 
Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Ah, I see, Ariel. I wasn't trying to play down the effect that other sins/crimes have. My point was to show that child abuse and molestation have catastrophic effects on their victims and families. My parents are divorced, so I know the blow that can have on a person. Yeah, it sucks, but you know what? Looking back on the whole thing, it was the right thing to do. Not the easy thing, because it happened after many years of marriage, but the right thing. Their marriage was irretrievably broken, and no amount of counseling could have changed that. The pre-divorce environment that I grew up in was not happy or illustrative of functional relationships. And I don't blame them for that, that's just how it was.

However, it is clinically insane to maintain that the repercussions of that divorce are on par with the repercussions of an adult who has violated a child's fundamental right to grow up safe, happy, innocent and loved. What kind of world is it that equates such a heinous act with recognition that you have not succeeded in an equal partnership?
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Thank you GH. But as for you EL ... [brick wall]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
Thank you GH. But as for you EL ... [brick wall]

Tubbs
I forgot to add. GH, I'm sorry I lost my temper with you. But EL, the comments still stand. Trip trap

Tubbs
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
However, it is clinically insane to maintain that the repercussions of that divorce are on par with the repercussions of an adult who has violated a child's fundamental right to grow up safe, happy, innocent and loved. What kind of world is it that equates such a heinous act with recognition that you have not succeeded in an equal partnership?
I think the arguement was somthing like..stepfathers are more likely to be abusers of children than natural fathers, divorce leads to step-parentage, therefore divorce is a driving force behind increasing child abuse.

I suppose it's also part of a more general argument that breakdown of nuclear family is having a profound impact on our whole society and that a spin-off of that is increase in child abuse.

If what is being said amounts to "The smaller things cause the bigger things" then it's no doubt true. But, as you say, you can't on the basis of that say that the smaller things are worse in themselves.

matt
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
However, it is clinically insane to maintain that the repercussions of that divorce are on par with the repercussions of an adult who has violated a child's fundamental right to grow up safe, happy, innocent and loved. What kind of world is it that equates such a heinous act with recognition that you have not succeeded in an equal partnership?
I think the arguement was somthing like..stepfathers are more likely to be abusers of children than natural fathers, divorce leads to step-parentage, therefore divorce is a driving force behind increasing child abuse.

I suppose it's also part of a more general argument that breakdown of nuclear family is having a profound impact on our whole society and that a spin-off of that is increase in child abuse.

If what is being said amounts to "The smaller things cause the bigger things" then it's no doubt true. But, as you say, you can't on the basis of that say that the smaller things are worse in themselves.

matt
Interesting line of arguement but ... if you also look at the greater awareness of child sex abuse and the like now compared to what it was, say in the 70's - that would also help explain the rise in reported cases. (According to a recent documentary police first thought two children -Susan Blatchford, 11, and Gary Hanlon, 12 - in the "Babes in the Wood" murder case had died of cold rather than as a result of being attacked by Ronald Jebson)

Tubbs
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
Many of the men I dealt with in prison were in their 60s and 70s, having been abusers for many years but only charged when adult victims plucked up the courage to report what had happened.

We can't know if it is any more common now, but the fact it is easier to recognise and report may result in a greater conviction rate without any increase in offences.
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
Oh, and the 'fact' quoted above that most abusers are the victims of previous abuse is not borne out by serious research. So if anyone reading this is worried that in addition to everything else they have gone through, they have to worry about becoming abusers - you don't.

Sexual abuse is to do with inadequacy, low self esteem, lack of empathy and a desire for power. Perpetrators start with small and apparently victimless acts - like looking at child porn - and as they escalate their activity they justify it to themselves in the same way - the people they have abused are not really victims becasue they enjoyed it/asked for it/wanted it then changed their minds etc.

Take notice of what BB has bravely shared. The effect is absolutely devastating on victims, families, communities.

The only link with step parenting is that child abuse is rarely opportunistic but usually planned over a very long time. This involves winning the trust of people who look after young children so you are allowed time with them and the children are believed to be making it up if they say you have hurt them, because you are such a trusted member of the community.

Churches in the UK used to offer a very easy way of getting to such a position of trust. Another way is to win the trust of a single mother and become a friend of the family or a boyfriend.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It is very useful to have people on the Ship who know about this subject professionally. Because the rest of us only have the 'facts' provided in the media to go on, and it is hard to know which are true and which are wildly exaggerated (I had taken the 'abusers were often once abused' notion as fact, for example). So please continue to share your expertise with us and put right the inaccuracies, it is greatly appreciated.
 
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 
One of the aspects of this current crisis regarding the extent to which child abuse images are downloaded(lets not kid ourselves-that is what pornographic pictures of children are-abuse from first to last-and if you download this shit, you are an abuser of children), is the reality that it reveals, yet again. Children are most in danger, not from the evil and predatory stranger but from families and friends in whom they have put their unconditional trust. And the flagrant breaking of this unconditional trust by adults has consequences for that child's development and hope of a flourishing life which are incalculable.

It makes me ask questions about Christian notions of the family which continue to stress that it is the family which is the foundation of a safe and secure environment in which our children can lovingly grow. Is this true when so many families, seemingly respectable and moral, contain dark secrets as to how their children are not only nurtured but kept safe. For instance, there is some research, and don't ask me where I read it, that the more overtly moral and religiously conservative and authoritarian the complexion of the family is(particularly residing in the father), the more likely it is that issues of child abuse will not only be unacknowledged but actively denied. A Recent Panorama programme concerning the wide spread denial of child abuse amongst Jehovah Witnesses is a case in point.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Exactly, Arch. [Not worthy!]
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
And there simply isn't a mass of concern about 'child abuse' - what there is public concern about is organised paedophilia, which makes up a tiny amount of the amount of child abuse which goes on - the vast bulk of which is within families and by those known to the children, and the victims are more likely to be young girls.
It seems to me that there is anything but concern and concentration on that sort of child abuse.
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
To say it mostly happens in the family is a complete red herring. It is not the same as saying most children are more at risk from family members than from those outside. If your family does not contain paedophiles this does not mean your child is not at risk, sadly, s/he could be at risk from a member of a friend's family or from another trusted adult.

If we're talking about sexual abuse (which I presume we are) you can't divorce the two. There aren't two sorts of paedophiles - those who abuse in the family and those who abuse strangers - between whom those enforcing the law need to choose. Those abusing in families look for new victims once their relatives grow up, these will be outside the family but maybe not too far outside. Paedophilia is a behaviour pattern. 'Organised paedophiles' often organise things involving their own children or grandchildren as they are the most easily available to them.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
And they use their own children to supply their paediphile friends.

And if their is paedophilia around in a family, there is usually a plethora of other kinds of abuse, too.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
There are patterns of abuse that 'flow' down the family tree. In this pattern a person will abuse their eldest child, and then disgard in favour of a younger child. This will continue, with nieces and/or nephews, then on to grandchildren and great-neices and/or nephews. It is in situations like this that the family will often clam up and make outcasts of anyone who dare make any allegations.

Of course, it is not simply just young girls that are abused by males in the families, or step-families. Men abuse boys as well, and women also abuse children.

If you are a parent with young children:
Don't go overboard and start frightening your children. Be gentle with them, and be consistent.
bb
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
For information there is a book I've read written by Adrian Plass about a curate who lived on the Isle of Wight. The curate was, I believe, sexually abused by his single mother when he was very young, and after reading the first disturbing chapter it took me a month before I could pick it up again. I'm sorry I can't remember the title but this guy through much pain eventaully had a successful healing ministry.

We do as a Society seem to be living with Sex 'in our faces' all day on billboards, top shelves, newspapers and TV. The only news about The Royal Family that makes the newspapers is sexual.

I noticed on the way home yesterday a Magazine in WH Smith with a woman on the front (probably 20) made up to look like a 13 year old schoolgirl in uniform sucking a lolly.

Pax et Bonum
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Lets be clear about several statistical points.

The number of biological fathers sexually abusing their daughters (or sons) is low. Most family abuse is from stepfathers, stepbrothers, uncles, cousins. Family friends and adults in authority are also high on the list. Abuse by the biological dad, when it occurs, is more likely to be damaging. Which is unsurprising, really.

There is a constant hope by researchers that they will uncover that religiously conservative, authoritarian fathers are the most common abusers, because that fits the prejudice of those doing the research. I don't believe anything which stands up to scrutiny has come out, but I admit I have not interested myself in the research in the past ten years. (I became disillusioned as more and more of the research experts in the field turned out to be abusers. I kept having to throw away expensive texts as unreliable. That is something I have on impression, not statistically.)

Interestingly, merseymike, the numbers of boys and girls abused is more equal than you might think. There are many more adult molesters of girls, but they tend to have few victims. Molesters of boys (I think the terms homosexual and heterosexual are misleading when talking about abused children. Not that there is nothing to the distinction, but that they obscure more than they reveal.) are much fewer in number but tend to have hundreds of victims. I have not heard any satisfactory explanations of this, and because it doesn't particularly give ammunition to any prejudice, we may have to wait long until research on the topic is very far-reaching.

I have heard many speculations about this, but they impress me as attempts to fit the data to the theories.

As of a decade ago in the US, about 40% of child molesters had themselves been molested. Molesters like to think of themselves as sexually impulsive, but are better described as opportunistic. Proof of progression from pornography to live abuse is tenuous, but not non-existent. There is some connection demonstrated. But the connection of substance abuse to events of molestation is quite high. Even though I personally believe pornography is mental rehearsal -- for some, rehearsal of a play which never opens -- I would give an offender a pile of porn before I allowed him one beer.

One intriguing bit in the histories of abusers of both boys and girls is the large percentage of perps who saw their mothers having sex with someone other than their fathers. There are too many confounding factors to make any linear conclusion, but it is, as I said, intriguing.
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Thanks, Arietty and logician, for your perspectives on the issue. And thank you, Babybear, for your example of courage.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly enough. The 'popular view' of paedophilia is still the furtive , lonely man hanging about outside the school gates - who is part of a 'paedophile ring'. This is very much the image presented in the tabloid press, and I was trying to contrast the reality, which is that child abuse can take place in many different circumstances than that which fulfils the popular /press construction of 'the paedophile'
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Logician : I think the problem with the statistics is that the number of child abusers who have actually been caught is miniscule - I do agree that it is youth which primarily appeals, rather than gender, but I would also say that the link which has often been maintained by those with such an aim, between homosexuality and paedophilia, has made it more likely that those who primarily abuse boys will be caught, since somehow that appears to be regarded as 'more serious'. Or perhaps its just part of the broader attempt to link paedophilia and homosexuality - something which makes me very angry.

This is becoming a rather purgatorial discussion, so I had better cease...
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote from logician
quote:
The number of biological fathers sexually abusing their daughters (or sons) is low.
I have heard that the biological fathers who do abuse their children were not around the child during its infancy, or had nothing to do with its hands-on care.

The idea is that taking care of the most basic needs of a helpless infant arouses a feeling of protectiveness which inhibits later abuse.

Does anyone know whether this is true?

Moo
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
MM, I can understand your defensiveness on the issue, and thought I had chosen my words carefully enough to not give a false impression or accusation. If I failed at that, I apologise.

I suspect you are correct that there is a significant minority of people who react more strongly against same-sex pedophilia. But even among that group, I think many would recant when confronted with the question "Is it worse?"

Moo, the theory sounds plausible, but I know of nothing to support it. I do know that in the population of bio fathers who molest daughters the alcoholism rate is very high.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I'm not being defensive, logician - just accurate.
 
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
This interview with Moors Murderer Myra Hindley (now deceased) gives a flavour of the mindset of someone who abuses children. It is not sensational or distressing - just the observations of a remarkably insightful journalist (who is talking about the possibility of redemption among other things) and how Myra Hindley tried to win her over.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
As someone who was molested by both my father and an older brother, I have read this thread with interest (and with tears streaming). Being a relative newcomer to the Ship I wasn't quite sure how the discussion would go, but I want to thank shipmates for the sensitivity most have shown.

It feels like a huge risk posting this, but I wanted to say the (unhellish) thank-you.
 
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
As someone who was molested by both my father and an older brother, I have read this thread with interest (and with tears streaming). Being a relative newcomer to the Ship I wasn't quite sure how the discussion would go, but I want to thank shipmates for the sensitivity most have shown.

It feels like a huge risk posting this, but I wanted to say the (unhellish) thank-you.
Thank you so much, Hiua. Believe me, I know how much courage your post took. Thank you again. And a warm welcome.

[Angel]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Thank you, Huia.

I hope that reading this thread has helped the healing prcess a little.

Moo
 
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Welcome to Hell, and to the Ship, Huia. Take time to look around, read threads from all the boards, and post where and when you wish [Smile]

Thank-you for your honesty and bravery here.

Viki, hellhost
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Huia

Welcome. You will find things written that make you wince, but I think your experience here will be similar to your experience across the board.

I am a lousy therapist, but part of my job is steering people away from interventions which will cause more harm than good. Please correspond if you want an objective opinion on the therapy/no therapy/which therapy questions, and the wrestle with it/bury it questions.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
I think that as more people say "I was also abused." it makes it harder for people to cling to their untrue 'facts' and their preconceptions of who child abusers are.

I have found that healing takes a huge amount of time. There have bee a couple of times when I read that thread that I was sobbing.

My tip is that if the consequences of abuse are affecting everything you do, then go seek qualified professional advice. If there are 'eruptions', then deal with them as they come along. Don't go digging, but when they come to the surface, do something about it. That is what I have done, and it has worked pretty well for me.

The other night I suddenly remember so many details about the surroundings. It brought lots of memoried flooding back. Then I 'saw' him, for the first time I saw him through 'adult eyes'. He was a small, almost fraile man, very lonely. I found myself alternating between being full of pity for him and being very angry that anyone could treat a child in that way.

bb
 
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
Huia

I am a lousy therapist, but part of my job is steering people away from interventions which will cause more harm than good. Please correspond if you want an objective opinion on the therapy/no therapy/which therapy questions, and the wrestle with it/bury it questions.
Tell me, Logician, what actually qualifies you to offer an 'objective' opinion? I have wondered this about many of your threads. You seem to believe you possess a wisdom many of us that is somehow irrefutably and objectively verifiable. How it does it feel to feel you are so 'objectively' right so much of the time? Isn't an 'objective opinion' a tautology?
 
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 
a wisdom many of us find barely attainable is what I thought I was saying in the middle of the last thread. Sorry
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
His profile says 'Psychiatric Social Worker' but whether you think that qualifies him to comment, Arch-, probably depends on your view of Psychiatric Social Workers!
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Well, I think "objective opinion" is somewhat self-contradictory, Arch- and I will try to eliminate it from my vocabulary. The phrasing "I have a position..." would have been better, or "disinterested opinion."

As to my knowledge of things -- one person's Renaissance Man is another's dilletante, eh? I know that my arrogant tone is off-putting, and allowing that to show through (for it is unfortunately the Real Me) is a conscious decision. I spent the years between 20-35 being so desperately polite and circuitous that I was not understood. I decided to risk the opposite problem, of being offensive but at least clearly understood.

As to the issue at hand, I have been a psychiatric social worker on a variety of acute-care units at a public psychiatric hospital for 25 years. This makes for a total of some 5,000 patients. I have as a natural consequence known dozens of sexual offenders and hundreds of victims. I have some graduate training related to the field. I read, I listen, I seek out people who really know things. I used to go to conferences as well, but that was a decade ago. Most of my patients have Serious Mental Illnesses, personality disorders, neurological problems, and/or addictions, so I can apply a general knowledge as well. I have to know more than a smattering of a score of subjects to do my job.

All the above qualifications could also be listed by any number of prize idiots, and I know some. So the credentials mentioned above are really, not much. Very often I am quoting people I know who are experts when I make definitive statements. If I say "exploratory therapies which seek to uncover and re-engage past traumas are dangerous," I have not done any research and am no theorist. I simply report what is now common knowledge among the people who most effectively treat this population.

Therefore, it would be silly to use mealy-mouthed language and say "some people believe that there are risks as well as potential benefits to so-called "uncovering" therapies, and you might want to consult with a qualified professional before trying this." It would also be cruel, because it would not be a stern enough warning. You might find a "qualified" professional who would tell you what a great idea it was to relive traumas to "deal" with them, you would have a psychiatric crisis, and possibly end up in the care of someone like me. I have similar information on other therapies.

So I don't use evasive language. I tell people flat out "Don't do this. Bad for you." I don't apologise in the least for sounding/being arrogant. I'm not blowing smoke: I know the answer to that question.

I usually avoid the threads where I have no knowledge. For example, I haven't looked at the Pronoun/"She"/Referring to God thread. I have nothing to offer. I don't particularly care about the answer.

I hope I have been clear on this thread when it is that I know things, when I think them likely, and when I really don't know.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
I think that as more people say "I was also abused." it makes it harder for people to cling to their untrue 'facts' and their preconceptions of who child abusers are.
the surface, do something about it. That is what I have done, and it has worked pretty well for me.
----------
The other night I suddenly remember so many details about the surroundings. It brought lots of memoried flooding back. Then I 'saw' him, for the first time I saw him through 'adult eyes'. He was a small, almost fraile man, very lonely. I found myself alternating between being full of pity for him and being very angry that anyone could treat a child in that way.

bb
What you say makes so much sense to me babybear. One of the reasons I posted was because of the hidden nature of abuse. It's important for me to speak my truth, but I am careful only to do so when I feel safe and am feeling strong in myself.

I visited my family home some time ago and saw my father as a defeated, old man and I too felt both anger and pity.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
So I don't use evasive language. I tell people flat out "Don't do this. Bad for you."
That sort of answer is used by parents with their two year old child! It that leaves people asking "Why?" What you term the "mealy-mouther answer" is actually of far more help because it gives the answer to "why?".

I don't doubt your professional knowledge and have found many things that you have said on this thread to be very helpful. However, there are many people on the Ship who are like me, and want to weigh the pros and cons. I want to take informed decisions, but if the information is simply "Don't do it, tis bad." then I can not take a decision based on the information, I have to base it on trust, and as you will know people who have been abused tend to have a problem with trust. If you give reasons I can go off and read articles etc on the subject, and then come to an informed opinion.

Tis also a shame that you one visit threads where you have knowledge. There are many interesting things to be learned from listening to shipmates.

bb
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Logician said,
"All the above qualifications could also be listed by any number of prize idiots, and I know some. So the credentials mentioned above are really, not much. Very often I am quoting people I know who are experts when I make definitive statements. If I say "exploratory therapies which seek to uncover and re-engage past traumas are dangerous," I have not done any research and am no theorist. I simply report what is now common knowledge among the people who most effectively treat this population.
Therefore, it would be silly to use mealy-mouthed language and say "some people believe that there are risks as well as potential benefits to so-called "uncovering" therapies, and you might want to consult with a qualified professional before trying this." It would also be cruel, because it would not be a stern enough warning. You might find a "qualified" professional who would tell you what a great idea it was to relive traumas to "deal" with them, you would have a psychiatric crisis, and possibly end up in the care of someone like me. I have similar information on other therapies."

Logician, it depends what you mean by "uncovering therapies". There are plenty of people who have experienced abuse so dreadful that it has been repressed or suppressed so that they could survive and get on with life.

The abuse memory pops up later very often, after that wonderful defence is outdated. So it needs to be carefully, safely and respectfully addressed. And since a child's memory is different (size, knowledge etc) from an adult's memory in some ways, this is confusing and scarey.

When a person is suffering because memories are buried and are surfacing naturally, they need good, solid, loving and professionally competent help.

I don't know where you get the "common knowledge" bit from. What do you mean?
 
Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :
 
My question would be: common knowledge for whom? (NB - I realise this is generalising from a sample of one, and can't be taken as an indictment of the whole profession. However the individual involved was the only individual who dealt with young people in the fairly sizeable town in which I lived)

I was under the 'care' of a social worker who specialised in psychiatry for the year I turned 18. In that year, my faith in mental health professionals died, as I was patronised, marginalised, hassled, ignored and messed around by constant rearranging of appointments. If that woman had had her way, I would have been forced to abandon my A levels in the exam year and been sectioned to a psyche ward. The only thing that stopped her was that I had not yet turned 18, and my parents were able to fight her on my behalf.

I realise that I have only a sample of one in my experience. But the fact that there are any people at all in that position of authority with so little empathy and so little intelligence frightens me.

Who is your 'common knowledge' common to? To respected and intelligent experts in their field, or moronic automatons who specialise in attempting to shred people's lives "for their own good"?
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
I know a man who used to run a Care Home who has just been sentenced to prison for child abuse that happened 25 years ago.

Two of his former charges gave evidence against him. Both have long criminal records. One has already given evidence against another man, who was found guilty. The abused person then received a large payout from the organsiation that ran the home.

The trial was down to the word of one man against the 2 others. He believes that the jury just didn't listen and that they were so horrifed by what the allegations were that they didn't listen to the evidence.

He pleads his innocence, in his view saying that these men were never abused at all, but have discovered a 'gravy train'.

I can't prove whether he's guilty or not, but I wonder how many innocent men are being sent to prison for crimes that don't exist.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Logician, I think it would be very helpful if you indicated the source of your specific information.

In the case of 'uncovering' therapy, you could say something like, "Every/many/most psychotherapist at the hospital where I work believes this therapy can be harmful. We have seen patients who would never have had to be admitted to the hospital if they had not been subjected to uncovering therapy."

When I evaluate a post, I want to know the source of the information. Flat statements don't cut it for me.

Moo
 
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Logician and others,

Just a hostly reminder not to offer any counselling/therapeutic advice on the public boards.

Viki, hellhost
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
A reasonable general challenge, Arch-. I think many others make grander claims, but I am unsubtle about it. See below.

A reasonable request, Moo. I am afraid I will disappoint, but here goes.

When I am feeling optimistic, I estimate that when one enters a discussion, there will be four groups. 30% will more or less agree with you, and the better sort will get you to refine your thought, will build on your statements, and will teach you something. Another 30% are determined to disagree, and would not accept a thing you say if you had a signed note from God. Another 10% are willing to be persuaded by good information. The last 30% is the most difficult. They believe they are in the 10% who are open to reason, but delude themselves. This group is usually the most intelligent (in the usual sense), witty, and socially enjoyable, but use this intelligence to play chess against themselves in any discussion. I really piss this group off.

That’s when I’m optimistic. More usually, I don’t believe that the 10% group exists. I don’t have any bibliography to support this view. It’s my position from observation. And I don't know how to categorize the numerous people who bring up irrelevancies or get what you say exactly backwards.

I usually only divide the groups accurately in retrospect. When I am in the thread, I tend to initially regard everyone as being in the 10% group, and I gradually get pissed off at the intrusions of two and a half (of the three) other groups and consign the whole lot to perdition. This is unfair to that magic 10%. Assuming of course, that they exist. Which I doubt.

Asking me to justify my claims with supporting data should be the most reasonable thing. It is the most reasonable thing. However, when people actually do challenge, I find they are never satisfied. Whatever credentials you bring are not enough (“Oh, but you’re not a psychonutitionist.”), your sources are always unreliable. If you make five points they go immediately to the one they hope they can wrestle to the ground, treat it as the support point for everything else, and disregard the four others. And they never learn anything.

Some of the people in this last group are quite transparent to me, probably because I am more like them than I would wish. I spend meeting times at work writing predictive notes to my neighbors. She will get back at me for that disagreement in about five minutes, and it will be an attack on something to do with gender... When he interviews that patient this afternoon, he will focus on her sexual history, and want to tell us about it tomorrow. Then he will prescribe the abusable drugs she is looking for... Jan will change the subject... I can’t do this with most people, but with those I can, my friends laugh: “How can you do that?”

I took care to build up credibility on this thread before making such dramatic statements. Go back over the posts. What seems implausible of what I have written? Given my background, which of my observations is something I am unlikely to really know about? If people want to simply disbelieve, fine. I hope you do not have a crisis that puts what I write to the test. But if you do, you won’t care that I’m arrogant. You’ll just want the right answer. I give you the glasses to try on. You judge whether it helps you see better.

I once worked with an elderly black waiter who frequently said “If you cain’t be told, you cain’t be taught.”

Viki, you are correct, and I have transgressed on that point. I have probably already said too much.
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
Too perfect!

Please check out the "absolutely speechless" thread for evidence supporting the above.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I am sure you are warning people with the best motives, Logician, but as I found out when trying to warn friends away from a psychologically and spiritually abusive situation people don't want to be told. I still felt I had to say 'be careful' even though I couldn't say 'don't go there'. And that was justified later when the friends said 'you were right' but they had to say that from experience of getting their fingers burned rather than just accepting my word for it.

To use an analogy, I spent a lot of time warning my children away from the hot grill pan when they were toddlers. But it wasn't until they had touched it and burned themselves that they knew what 'hot' meant. After that, they never forgot and never tried to touch it again!
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Logician,
You still have not said what you mean by "uncovering therapies."

And by your above posts, you seem to be saying that there are differing theories about most things in life.

But are you saying that I and others posting here are part of the awkward 10% ? If so, why not directly, if not let us know.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Aren't all SoF members considered to be the awkward 10%??! Isn't that why we are here? Before I gave up on Christian Union completely, we were divided up into groups. I discovered on a list that each group had been allocated one 'awkward one' so we were not all in the same group. Yes, you've guessed it, my name was down as one of the 'awkward ones' [Two face]

Logician calls anyone who doesn't agree with him 'awkward', n'est-ce pas? [Wink]

Anyway, what has all this to do with the thread title? I'm beginning to lose the plot...... [Confused]
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Anyway, what has all this to do with the thread title? I'm beginning to lose the plot...... [Confused]
I haven't lost the plot, but was wondering why this has changed from being a thread about something really important into self-justication by logician.

I have really appreciated his earlier posts on the subject. But if people want to discuss his 'arrogance' please bugger off and do it on another thread.

bb
 
Posted by logician (# 3266) on :
 
A Nice Person has told me to take my own advice, shut up, and just do it.
It was pretty clear. For those even remotely interested, these are my sources, and I am sorry to have played this so long. I'll go somewhere else for awhile. (Daisymae, I mean therapies which seek to dig, regress, or uncover as an intentional practice, not those which deal with what comes up unbidden.)

I start with references of people I can personally vouch for as reasonable,
having worked with them or gone to one of their workshops. That group will
be New England based. I'll start with the web-based info.
Safer Society Varied, but generally good info.
Bright, practical people who have put their ideas into practice. They also
have a lot of good evaluative tools.

Anna Salter PhD, author of Sadistic vs. Non-sadistic Sexual Offenders;
Sexual Abuse . Also writes crime novels (Shiny Water; Fault Lines; White Lies; Prison Blues) which are a little didactic in nature, and lean toward
male-bashing. So I've heard. I've only read one, and liked it fine. The
rap against her is that she gets by on charm and emotion. I don't buy that
in the least. She is very clear, very experienced with both perps and
victims, very up on the research. Maybe people are jealous because she's
attractive. She was a feminist icon until she started carrying a handgun.
If I had to deal with her clientele, I would too.

Peter Loss, PhD. Runs the Rhode Island incarcerated Sex Offender Program.
Has designed excellent risk-assessment tools published by the National
National Clearinghouse on Family Violence in Ontario. Pioneered accountability
Programs, and weighting of 30 risk factors. Perps' lawyers hate him. I think he's a lot of fun, though he's
a little worn at this point (probably those lawyers). Also designed the
Massachusetts and Connecticut Incarcerated Sex Offender programs.

Crimes Against Children Research Center at University of New Hampshire; slanted toward the "all spanking is assault"
polarity, but very valuable. If you have caught news stories about studies
showing a decrease in sexual offenses in the 90's, these are the people who
did that research.

David Cantagallo
Just heard him speak today, hadn't seen him in oh, 4-5 years. Private
therapist who treats the DSO population at the Secure Psychiatric Unit at
the NH prison and at the Youth Development Center. Vanguard of group
therapy, accountability model, behavior chain and use of electronic
supports (videotape, polygraph, plethysmograph).

Counterpoint, sexual addiction model

Martin Kafka, MD, professor of psychiatry often in Harvard Medical School newsletter. THE pioneer of the use of SSRI’s in sexual addiction, as far back as 1989. Most studies focus on voluntary outpatients, but incarcerated offenders also show a response, though less robust. Martin delights in tweaking the reader outraged by certain sexual behaviors, pointing out the winked-at pedophilia of Bill Wyman and Jerry Lee Lewis, the sexualizing of children’s clothing and entertainers, our exhibitionistic, voyeuristic, and frotteuristic culture, blandly noting the inconsistencies. Not an inspiring speaker, not a notably compassionate clinician, but he’s always ahead of the curve.

General sites and info: International Society for the Study of Dissociation Strongly in the recovered memory camp, but tries to be very cautious in their assertions. More of a treatment than educational resource.

Jim Hopper, PhD here and here Exceptionally good statistical, summary, and links page. I don’t know Dr. Hopper. I have a secondhand report that he is brilliant.
Center For Sexual Offender Management Their editorial board is the best short list of who to read in the field

Bessel Van Der Kolk's site
David Baldwin's site
Gene G. Abel, the developer of the Abel Screening Inventory, the gold standard of measuring treatment effectiveness. Professor at Emory University Medical School.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences vol.528
Trauma and Its Wake , Charles Figley, ed.
Anything by R. Karl Hanson, Prentky, or Becker.

Journals are going to be hard to come by for most folks, but if you have access, these are the best. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Journal of Social Work Human Sexuality. (Social Work Journals are usually the worst in the field, but because it is frequently social workers who run victim or offender groups, they shine here.)

Spiritual connections:
Journal of Christian Healing Very uneven in quality, but much that is good.
Wayne Muller, better known for his book on the Sabbath, also has Legacy of the Heart: The Spiritual Advantage of a Painful Childhood.

Neurological bases. This is turning out to be big news. Ottawa researchers are believe there are fetal influences for a variety of sexual behaviors, and note that left-handers, brain-trauma, and are hugely overrepresented in the DSO population. Very little on the web, though you can link through Baldwin to Yehuda&McFarlane, Porges, and Perry. Mostly, you’re going to have to seek out American Journal of Psychiatry.
The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol.528 Human Sexual Aggression is dated but excellent

How you feel about these depends on how you feel about 12-step groups. I believe it would be treatment-advising to give my opinion, but they all have literature and here are the links: Sexaholics Anonymous, Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous

I only link to the EMDR and Marsha Linehan DBT Marsha Linehan DBT sites, because people would ordinarily expect to see here. I don’t disapprove of them, but I am ambivalent. I think if I explain why, I will be giving treatment advice.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
Logician, Thanks for all your posts on this thread, particulaly the last one. Huia
 
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
I briefly caught a news item on this (BBC1 bout 8ish I think), and it said that 7,000 people had subscribed to the American child porn site, and had their details passed to the police of their area, when the American police broke the ring. Of these 7,000, only 200 had been arrested so far, for having illegal subscriptions to child porn sites, never mind the pictures etc on their hard drives, which are also illegal. Apparently a lot of the different police forces didn't realise exactly what the pictures involved* and/or didn't think it was an important enough crime to warrant even cautioning them, let alone arresting the fuckers. One area sent them all letters saying that the police knew they had been subscribing to this shit, but nothing more.

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

Viki

*According to the news programme, the pictures weren't just kids in swimsuits etc; most of the shit the American police found when they raided the place was children being graphically abused/raped.

[Forgot footnote]

[ 23. November 2002, 02:03: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
I briefly caught a news item on this (BBC1 bout 8ish I think), and it said that 7,000 people had subscribed to the American child porn site, and had their details passed to the police of their area, when the American police broke the ring. Of these 7,000, only 200 had been arrested so far, for having illegal subscriptions to child porn sites, never mind the pictures etc on their hard drives, which are also illegal. Apparently a lot of the different police forces didn't realise exactly what the pictures involved* and/or didn't think it was an important enough crime to warrant even cautioning them, let alone arresting the fuckers. One area sent them all letters saying that the police knew they had been subscribing to this shit, but nothing more.

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

Viki

*According to the news programme, the pictures weren't just kids in swimsuits etc; most of the shit the American police found when they raided the place was children being graphically abused/raped.

[Forgot footnote]
This is what I was attempting to stress. These are not isolated incidents but huge numbers of people, largely unkown to the police, who are downloading the most appalling images of abuse. This is child abuse on a previously unknown scale, committed not by the 'curious', whatever the hell that means, but by abusers, for downloading and watching this indescribable stuff is child abuse, pure and simple. The stereotype of the lurking, evil stranger preying on our children is not the one we should be most fearful of, but that nice chap next door, you know, the one who is a bit of a computer buff!
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Logician,
Nice set of sites. Sorry I can't add any UK ones as when I sabotaged my iMac, I lost all my 'favourites'.

Arch,
It is horrifying and hellish. But maybe this publicity (though it's dying down; I wonder why?) will help the 'general public' to get away from their stereotyping of child abusers and wife batterers as 'ignorant, brutish, working-clas' types.

So many abusers are really clever at conning both victims and onlookers. [Two face] [Two face]

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Two face] [Two face] [Two face]
 
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
from daisymay:
quote:
So many abusers are really clever at conning both victims and onlookers.
This is so true, and don’t forget the accessories to the crime: every single adult who is aware of an abuser, & refuses to act because it is SO much easier to look the other way.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0