This thread is in response to

The ghost of Wayne Tolleson

 

assertion that it is not. He has provided 3 links to support his argument that child-porn is not a primary factor in the creation of pedophiles around the world.

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia.html

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...efid=ency_botnm

http://www.mhamic.org/causes/causesbiblio.htm

 

I will of course be analyzing these links over time & will weigh in on their value.

 

Until then there are some facts that I wish to share to aid in this debate:

1) Pedophiles are more prevalent in regions where age of consent is as low as 12.

Now in that region it is not considered as such, but by American standards it would be. In such regions child-porn (by American standards) is rampant.

 

2) Pedophiles are more prevalent where child-porn is more easily distributed. If you compare metropolitan areas of equal sizes from Europe & America this is a fact.

 

3) Lolita cases are more prevalent in areas of the world where nudity of children (again as measured by American standards) is permissible.

 

4) Child-prostitution is more prevalent in such areas as well. Again measured by American standards there are far more child prostitutes in most of the G7 than in the US. Child-prostitution & child-porn are synonymous. One is simply the inevitable evolution of the other.

I think it is difficult to separate the chicken from the egg here.

I have to agree with Tex for the most part.

Just be glad this poll stops short of delving into the good ol' stereotype that marries homosexuality and pedophilia.

 

Progress has definately been made.

Just be glad this poll stops short of delving into the good ol' stereotype that marries homosexuality and pedophilia.

 

Progress has definately been made.   

It will get there soon enough :headshake

 

Since I spend a great deal of time working with youth, and we are very diligent in watching for things that do not seem quite right, I understand how this stereotype keeps reemerging. One of the things we look for is why is this person volunteering? If they do not have a child in the program, red flags go up immediately. And since many homosexuals are childless, they get lumped into a mislabeled pile.

 

The Boy Scouts have invested heavily in training to stop pedaphiles from gaining access to the boys. Two deep leadership, no one on one contact ever, separate washroom, changing, and showering facilities, teaching the kids about pedaphiles, giving parents tools to help them, etc. are all ways we work to prevent this form of abuse.

 

What is misinterpreted is the ban on openly homosexual leaders is not a youth protection issue, but rather the belief by the (charter) franchise organizations (usually Churches, LDS, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist) that homosexuals are not morally straight. BSA never claimed a link between homosexuals and the propensity to abuse children.

 

What the US Supreme Court ruled was that the Boy Scouts, as a private entity, could set their own standards for membership. So it also affirmed the right for a Jewish group, for example, to limit their group to Jews, or a black businessmen's group to limit their membership to black businessmen.

 

I am not claiming to agree of disagree with the BSA policy, however, I do agree wholeheartily in the Supreme Court's position.

I would seem to think its either a product of abuse/neglect from a parent or something chemically or mentally wrong with the person(s).

Let me repeat this so there are no mis-understandings:

Representing the techno-religious-conservative group I can tell you that there is NO scientific basis (polls, survey, research, statistics, or otherwise) that suggests that pedophiles stems predominantly from homosexuality. There is absolutely none.

 

I realize the media loves the Church scandal but the reality as found in the FBI investigations on the matter is that the % of this behavior in the Church is actually lower than any other individual group of an equal or greater size. So try to look beyond the media & realize that there simply is no link to suggest homosexuality leads to pedophile behavior.

 

Even if you make an argument that the numbers support such a link in sex-segregated schools (all boy or all girl) there are other psychological factors associated with these schools to make them an exception case. Factors that should be studied if the democrats beginning moving in this direction as suggested by Hillary's recent comments on the subject.

 

In any case, there is simply no basis so let's stick to the topic at hand.

Hopefully you can accept the facts that the %'s w/in the heterosexual group greatly overshadow those of the homosexual one. The largest classification of pedophiles are the lolita cases which are much more prevalent overseas than they are here. It's important to note that America's standards are not the world's on this topic.

DSM IV infor on diagnosis

 

This adds to Ghost's links on how to diagnosis (properly) pedophilia. The DSM IV is the MOST authoritative source on how professionals properly diagnose a pedophile.

DSM IV infor on diagnosis

 

This adds to Ghost's links on how to diagnosis (properly) pedophilia. The DSM IV is the MOST authoritative source on how professionals properly diagnose a pedophile.

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia.html

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...efid=ency_botnm

http://www.mhamic.org/causes/causesbiblio.htm

 

Not one of these links nor does the link quoted make any mention of the impact of media on pedophilia. Why you believe the absence of information constitutes a fact is beyond me. There are two parts to finding information on the net. First you need a general idea of subject that forms a basis to your argument & then you need to know how to find science facts (including polls, surveys, & studies) that support that basis. There are nearly 3000 links attesting to the relationship of child-porn & the spread of Pedophilia.

 

Here are some of the better ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3095271.stm

Virtually all of the offenders (99) had collected child pornography.

Almost a third of the offenders were students and a third lived at home with their parents or grandparents.

The most common age of offending in the study's sample was 17.

 

The DSM definition certainly lends credence to the belief that child porn is a primary factor.

 

The Paraphilias are characterized by recurrent, intense, sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations and cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The Paraphilias include Exhibitionism, Fetishism, Frotteurism, Pedophilia, Sexual Masochism, Sexual Sadism, Transvestic Fetishism, Voyeurism, and Paraphilia

The paraphilic focus of Pedophilia involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger).

 

The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account.

 

============================

 

First off this makes no reference to kids abusing kids in this manner which some studies have shown does lead to adult Pedophilia. So I do not agree with limiting the classification to 16+. Secondly the majority of Americans believe that Pedophilia should apply to minors (under the age of 18). The 13 age reference stems from a worldly opinion & not necc an American one. Thirdly what part of child porn differs from being a media source that caters to the definition of the Pedophilia Paraphilia?

The worst part, is that the ACLU is defending NAMBLA in a murder case pro-bono.

 

ACLU to Defend NAMBLA

 

I understand some civil liberties must be protected, but I don't the ACLU should defend an orginization in a murder case.

My last post on this topic: The statement that pedophiles use pornography does not PROVE that makes them pedophiles. Are men heterosexual because they look at "straight" porn or do they look at straight porn because they are heterosexual?

 

 

This question is silly because while you might get correlation (like heterosexual men liking to see naked ladies) you will never prove causation (heterosexual men are heterosexual BECAUSE they look at naked ladies). Any inference to the contrary is bad science.

My last post on this topic: The statement that pedophiles use pornography does not PROVE that makes them pedophiles. Are men heterosexual because they look at "straight" porn or do they look at straight porn because they are heterosexual?

 

 

This question is silly because while you might get correlation (like heterosexual men liking to see naked ladies) you will never prove causation (heterosexual men are heterosexual BECAUSE they look at naked ladies). Any inference to the contrary is bad science.

As long as one keeps their fantasies in check w/in their own mind his paraphilia remains private & they do not become harmful to children. Frequent exposure to porn grays the distinction between what is fantasy & what is real. It's common sense to understand that the more time one spends on an addiction the more real that addiction will become in their life. That's true for any addiction including drugs or media exposure. Likewise exposure to porn at an early age (as the survey suggests) can put the idea of pedophilia into the minds of those who might not otherwise be drawn to it w/out having the exposure to porn. Now given that most are falling around age 17 it's almost impossible to gather data to determine whether they showed traits of pedophilia before their exposure. So common sense needs to be applied here. Either way exposure to child-porn is not a good thing. I hope most of you can agree on that.

 

Of course there is the other real measureable argument dealing with supply & demand.

The greater the demand for child-porn the harder it is to curb the supply. Addiction is addiction whether it come through a needle or a screen. One day I hope you will realize that anything you spend $ on is essentially a vote in support of that product or service.