Slashdot Mirror

You *do* close the blinds before having sex, don't you?

But the real issue is that people are too hung up over this in the U.S. If such an incident happened to most normal people in the rest of the world, they would simply take better precautions and move on with their life. Going into a panic over it to the point where you get paranoid and dysfunctional is the wrong way to handle the problem. Also, there would be less of an issue with stalkers and so on if the U.S. wasn't so anally obsessed with maintaining a pseudo-1950s ideal of purity about the human body. I mean, as it was pointed out a couple of days ago here, you can show someone's head being exploded in a PG movie but you show a little too much skin and you're looking at a R rating.

ie - most of the rest of the industrialized world doesn't generally have to worry as much about such issues because sex and the body in media is far more accessible. So there's less of a psychological issue amongst the society because they can easily and simply get their porn or whatever as they need to. You'll note that the most sexually repressed societies are also amongst the most violent, especially in terms of assaults and rape.

Of course, this is barely being touched upon in modern Psychology. The idea that high incidents of rape and physical assault are a result of societal issues and a dysfunctional environment between the sexes and people's views of themselves and their bodies.

Some interesting reading:
http://www.ipce.info/library_2/pdf/prescott_en.pdf (perhaps the first study of its kind, though largely ignored in the U.S. until recently)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01068.x/abstract - This is extremely recent and a (long overdue) logical progression of the hypothesis, IMO.

The book "An Interview with The Devil" also has a coupe of great passages in it about this. Though it's mostly tongue-in-cheek humor, there is a valid point to be made about how people who are less able to show affection and obtain closeness with others end up being more violent. You'll note that the U.S. is even worse off than ever before and we also at the same time can't even hug each other or touch each other in public/school/work/etc without fear of being charged with a crime.

It would be interesting to do a study on sexual and physical repression in terms of the collapse of great empires throughout history. I suspect that the results might be quite interesting.

"Does anyone have statistics on what percentage of the population are pedophiles? I'm willing to bet that it's a pretty low number."

It's not a low number at all, although the occurrence of "paedophilia" of course depends on how you define "paedophilia". I've posted these figures before, but since you asked the question, I'll take the risk of sounding repetitive:

From Hall, et al -

Consistent with previous data (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund & Watson, 1991), 20 % of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 % exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.

[..]

Eighty subjects completed the study. [..] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.

[..] ....a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990).

From the British Journal of Social Work -

A self-administer questionnaire was given to a sample of 92 female and 91 male public sector child care workers. Results showed a significantly higher percentage of males (15 per cent) than females (4 per cent) expressed a sexual interest in children.

From Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder? -

In a sample of nearly 200 university males, 21% reported some sexual attraction to small children, 9% described sexual fantasies involving children, 5% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children, and 7% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught (Briere & Runtz, 1989). Briere and Runtz remarked that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesize that the actual rates were even higher" (p. 71). In another sample with 100 male and 180 female undergraduate students, 22% of males and 3% of females reported sexual attraction to a child (Smiljanich & Briere, 1996).

Laboratory researchers have validated physiologically the self-report studies of nonclinical, nonpedophile identified volunteers. In a sample of 80 "normal" volunteers, over 25% self-reported some pedophilic interest or in the plethysmographic phase exhibited penile arousal to a child that equaled or exceeded arousal to an adult (Hall, Hirschman, & Oliver, 1995). In another study, "normal" men's erections to pictures of pubescent and younger girls averaged 70 and 50%, respectively, of their responses to adult females (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergersen, & Holmes, 1975). In a control group of 66 males recruited from hospital staff and the community, 17% showed a penile response that was pedophilic (Fedora et al., 1992). Freund and Watson (1991), studying community male volunteers in a plethysmography classification study, found that19%were misclassified as having an erotic preference for minors. Freund and Costell (1970) studied 48 young Czech soldiers who were shown slides of children between 4 and 10, both male and female, as well as adolescents and adults, male and female. Penile responsivity to female children, ages 4-10, was intermediate to adolescent and adult females and males in o

I agree with your concerns about children's liberty being restricted in the name of "protecting" them. I also agree with your belief that there are some serious issues which are often ignored by the majority; the hysteria over paedophilia allows significant risks to children to remain undetected or trivialised.

"the effect of 0.00001% of the population having a predilection for children is frankly irrelevant compared to dangers such as traffic accidents, non-sexual abuse, violence and murder"

Actually, the percentage of people who are attracted to children is much higher than that, even if the men who like sexually mature 15 year old girls are not included in the statistics. Despite the widespread occurrence of paedophilia within the general population, most paedophiles refrain from abusing children for several reasons:

• Most paedophiles have a conscience.
• Most paedophiles don't want to be arrested and ostracised by their community (although frankly, many of us feel marginalised even though we haven't offended).
• Most paedophiles have suffered bad childhoods and don't wish to create problems for other children.

I'm not just making assumptions based on the fact that I live responsibly with a paedophilic orientation. I know many other paedophiles who are also responsible people.

I have posted this information previously, but it remains relevant:

From Hall, et al -

"Consistent with previous data (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund & Watson, 1991), 20 % of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 % exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.

[..]

Eighty subjects completed the study. [..] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.

[..] ....a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990)."

From the British Journal of Social Work -

"A self-administer questionnaire was given to a sample of 92 female and 91 male public sector child care workers. Results showed a significantly higher percentage of males (15 per cent) than females (4 per cent) expressed a sexual interest in children."

From Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder? -

"In a sample of nearly 200 university males, 21% reported some sexual attraction to small children, 9% described sexual fantasies involving children, 5% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children, and 7% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught (Briere & Runtz, 1989). Briere and Runtz remarked that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesize that the actual rates were even higher" (p. 71). In another sample with 100 male and 180 female undergraduate students, 22% of males and 3% of females reported sexual attraction to a child (Smiljanich & Briere, 1996).

Laboratory researchers have validated physiologically the self-report studies of nonclinical, nonpedophile identified volun

"Arguably, banning the drawing of such things, and dissemination of such cartoons discourages sickos from watching the cartoons and being encouraged."

There is no evidence for the argument that viewing child porn cartoons increases the risk of a person molesting a child. There is evidence to the contrary, however. Hall, et al. (1995) found that "arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior", Freel (2003) found that "if someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children", while Sheldon & Howitt (2008) found that "fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children."

You contradict yourself....

"Viewers of adult porn don't usually go out and become rapists do they?", then "your implication that blocking child porn would increase child abuse doesn't seem credible, in fact it is more likely to reduce it. The current situation probably tends to lead pedophiles to believe that their mindset is relatively normal which is far more dangerous to children."

In reality, most paedophiles don't molest children for the same reasons that most men don't rape women. Even those who think that sex with children is inherently harmless avoid sexual contact because of the effects of a socio-legal response for both themselves and children. From Freel (2003):

"[..] an expressed sexual interest in children does not infer actual perpretation. Indeed, the empirical evidence suggests that a much smaller number of men actually abuse children. There are significantly more men who express a sexual interest in children than there are actual perpetrators. This suggests the presence of inhibitors that stop men acting on their sexual interest."

I suspect that blocking internet access to child pornography would increase rates of child sexual abuse, but not necessarily in the way many would imagine. Digital storage and distribution means that any scannable or digital material can survive forever and be distributed on a much wider scale than would be possible without the internet. This means that there will be less interest in new material being produced, which is obviously a good thing if the material in question is child pornography.

There will clearly be some paedophiles who would abuse children regardless, but they are in a tiny minority of what is a large but hidden demographic of paedophiles.

"The current situation probably tends to lead pedophiles to believe that their mindset is relatively normal which is far more dangerous to children."

What "current situation" are you referring to? I am a paedophile, I know that paedophilia is normal, but I don't molest children. Believing that a fantasy is normal doesn't mean that one considers acting on the fantasy to be acceptable. Freel's research also shows that:

"If someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children."

From Hall, et al (1995):

Consistent with previous data (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund & Watson, 1991), 20 % of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 % exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.

[..]

Eighty subjects completed the study. [..] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.

[..]

a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990).

"citation needed"

If you're referring to the argument that most child porn viewers don't molest children, see a collection of quotes here

"Your post, and even the link you provided are missing something extremely important. A definition of "children"."

The term "pedophilic stimuli" is quoted in the article which I linked to, which indicates pre-pubescent children.

The text of the actual study* states:

Slides of frontal views of nude prepubescent female children, nude adult females, and slides of clothed prepubescent female children were presented

So the children depicted in the slides were pre-pubescent.

*Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men

Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.
In this context, these relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partners.
Ipce meets once every one or two years in a different country, publishes a newsletter and a web site, co-ordinates the (electronic) exchange of texts and keeps an archive of specific written publications.

Well, digging around a bit, I found a reference to a study I remembered hearing about some time back:

A major 1998 study in the highly respected Psychological Bulletin of the American Psychological Association found that adults who had been molested as children did not display significant emotional differences when compared to other adults who had not been abused. Bruce Rind et al., A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, 124 Psychol. Bull. 22, 46 (1998).

The study reviewed and analyzed the data from fifty-nine previous studies of college students who had reported experiencing childhood sexual abuse. The study found that students who were sexually abused were on average only slightly less well-adjusted than other comparable students and that those differences could be explained by other environmental factors.

But it did indeed take some digging to find that. There's no shortage of people taking a neo-freudian line out there.

Myself, I tend to think the "hatred and fear" are hold-overs from puritanical ideas about perfect innocence and eternal doom, but in any case, giving in to these things is very dangerous: there are people out there who are happy to push your buttons when they want you to jump.

"...consider it an adequate defense if the villain should plead that "she did not offer violent physical resistance"?"

The 'Age of Consent Campaign' is just a way out lawing sex outside of marrage.

"Our laws are shamelessly unequal when they make the punishment for stealing away a woman's honor no greater than for the purloining of her wardrobe, or when they give the man who robs her of her character a lighter sentence than he who steals her purse would incur;.... And if it was his own daughter whose purity had been sullied by some wretch who had taken advantage of her ..."

and adolescents make just as good decisions as Adults. Or should I say Adults make just as bad decisions as Adolescents. Adults are just way better at rationalizing thier decisions.

An Empirical Examination of Sexual Relations Between Adolescents and Adults

They Differ from Those Between Children and Adults and Should Be Treated Separately

Adolescent Development: Junk Science Run Wild

and I know TFA was about a 7 year old but her parents have no business on her computer anyway, if they want to monitor her net access don't but her comp in the network or have is logged/filtered on a comp she doesn't have access to.

Once it's on her computer it's to late anyways.

Saying children(and I mean actual children e.g. >10) shouldn't start trying to ACT responsible(not actually being responsible) is like saying "We should do away with Graduated Driver licensing. once they are 18 and pass the tests they should be given a full license. and no driving privileges before that. If they are not Responsible enough to drive full time without a supervisor they have no business driving at all."

Maybe she shouldn't have root. but she should deffinatly have her own acount on her own computer. and all accounts should have a password, and you shoulden't give out your password to other people. argo she should have a account with a password and not tell it to anyone.

Consistent with previous data (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund & Watson, 1991), 20 % of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 % exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.

[..]

Eighty subjects completed the study. [..] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.

[..] ....a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990).

A self-administer questionnaire was given to a sample of 92 female and 91 male public sector child care workers. Results showed a significantly higher percentage of males (15 per cent) than females (4 per cent) expressed a sexual interest in children.

In a sample of nearly 200 university males, 21% reported some sexual attraction to small children, 9% described sexual fantasies involving children, 5% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children, and 7% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught (Briere & Runtz, 1989). Briere and Runtz remarked that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesize that the actual rates were even higher" (p. 71). In another sample with 100 male and 180 female undergraduate students, 22% of males and 3% of females reported sexual attraction to a child (Smiljanich & Briere, 1996).

Laboratory researchers have validated physiologically the self-report studies of nonclinical, nonpedophile identified volunteers. In a sample of 80 "normal" volunteers, over 25% self-reported some pedophilic interest or in the plethysmographic phase exhibited penile arousal to a child that equaled or exceeded arousal to an adult (Hall, Hirschman, & Oliver, 1995). In another study, "normal" men's erections to pictures of pubescent and younger girls averaged 70 and 50%, respectively, of their responses to adult females (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergersen, & Holmes, 1975). In a control group of 66 males recruited from hospital staff and the community, 17% showed a penile response that was pedophilic (Fedora et al., 1992). Freund and Watson (1991), studying community male volunteers in a plethysmography classification study, found that19%were misclassified as having an erotic preference for minors. Freund and Costell (1970) studied 48 young Czech soldiers who were shown slides of children between 4 and 10, both male and female, as well as adolescents and adults, male and female. Penile responsivity to female children, ages 4-10, was intermediate to adolescent and adult females and males in one scoring system. In the other scoring system, all 48 soldiers showed penile response to adult females, as did 40 of 48 to adolescent females, and notably, 28 of 48 showed penile response to the female children age 4-10.

On the face of it, it seems quite outlandish to suggest that having access to a multimedia resource such as the internet can awaken some latent urge to offend in potential child sex offenders.

Even if we narrow our focus to child pornography itself, evidence is at best inconclusive:

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=HF1520736Z&news_headline=no_link_between_child_porn_and_sexual_abuse

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/01aug09f_theories.htm

http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/6a.htm

There is a lot more information pooled on this page as well:

http://www.critest.com/cpnonoffend.htm

On the face of it, it seems quite outlandish to suggest that having access to a multimedia resource such as the internet can awaken some latent urge to offend in potential child sex offenders.

Even if we narrow our focus to child pornography itself, evidence is at best inconclusive:

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=HF1520736Z&news_headline=no_link_between_child_porn_and_sexual_abuse

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/01aug09f_theories.htm

http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/6a.htm

There is a lot more information pooled on this page as well:

http://www.critest.com/cpnonoffend.htm

Just a thought.. and feel free to make jokes in reference to The Simpsons or whatnot.
But, what about "treatments" that can suppress?

Although I have to admit, I see it as more likely a psychological problem than one that is caused physiologically. Perhaps, it would be worth investigating if there is a physiological root that can be cut?

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/cloud_ped_tim e.htm
"Half of child sexual abusers are the parents of the victims; other relatives commit 18% of the offenses."
"Although news reports focus on horrific serial offenders, experts say it's possible, with treatment, to prevent pedophiles from abusing kids. States have incarcerated many child sexual abusers, but most eventually get out (average sentence: 11 years). Active pedophiles who find their way into the few treatment programs around the country turn out to be less of a risk than those who are locked up for a while and released."

http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec07/ch104/ch104c.html
Pedophilia can be treated with psychotherapy and drugs that alter the sex drive, with varying results. Such treatment may be sought voluntarily or only after criminal apprehension and legal action. Incarceration, even long-term, does not change pedophilic desires or fantasies.

How is it ambiguous? What definition of "well-regulated militia" puts the definition of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in question?

Because you can't take the second fragment out of context. You're trying to treat them as two separate clauses, but that's not how they were written. It is written as one, big, long sentence. The "well regulated militia" part is a qualifier for the "right to bear arms" part.

I'm don't want to debate the issue with you, I simply wanted to simply point out the fact that there is room for debate. It is in fact ambiguous, as evidenced by the enormous amount of debate over this very issue. If it were really as clear-cut as the first amendment, then there wouldn't be so much debate about it. It would be an open-and-shut case. But that's not the case with the second.

How is child pornography a clear-cut free speech issue? Free speech, like all of our rights, ends where it harms others:

How does a fictional story about paedophilia "harm others?" How do CGI-rendered, pornographic photos of children "harm others?" Again, don't misunderstand my position - I'm disgusted by the material. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is the law, and if the material isn't actually harming anyone, then it shouldn't be illegal.

The only part of child porn that "harms" others is the actual taking of the photos, and there are already tons of laws making that activity illegal (taking advantage of minors, underage sexual behaviour, child abuse, neglect, assault, forcible confinement, take your pick). We don't need a law that makes the pictures themselves illegal, or you get into situations like this.

"Given that early experiences shape brain development I think it's entirely appropriate to err on the side of caution. "

Not only is child sexual activity argued to be *not harmful* but two scientists have argued that it maybe beneficial. Of course their study was denounced in the United States Senate for trying to even suggest such an idea, without even reading it of course, but it seems that any harm that exists with child sexuality occurs in the after math. I give a brief example of what I am talking about, although I personally dislike anecdotes since they are a marginal form of evidence:

"A few years ago (on a talk show) a 16 year old boy said when he was 13 he had an affair with a female school custodian that lasted two years. He later stated that while it lasted it was great--he loved every second.... Well--his parents threw a fit. Boy was sent to a shrink and is told he was abused. A year of conditioning later he sits on this talk show and says what a horrible thing this woman did to him--and still stated that he thought it was great while it lasted--he didn't know he was being abused at the time. Now who the hell I ask you caused the damage here?"

If any damage or harm is seems to be done in the after math by parents, preachers, and therapists who abuse the victims a second time by brainwashing into them that sex and sexuality is evil.

"Please document that Bonobo adults engage in sexual activity with preadolescents and that this behaviour is culturally sanctioned."

http://www.narth.com/docs/debate2.html

Studies show that the bonobo has erotic contact with babies of its own species. And that behavior isn't likely harmful to the babies, Green says, because it's the babies themselves that often initiate the sex play.

"Pedophilia may have no genetic component at all. It could be a learned behaviour, as child molestation often is."

Sexual attraction is learned? That is far fetched. Either one becomes aroused or one does not at different people or objects. If it were learned, people would need to be taught arosal before they could have sex, clearly this is not the case.

Pedophilia seems even more common then homosexuality in the population

"Sorry, I'm going to call you on that one, because that's a hell of a claim to make (unless you broaden pedophilia to include attraction to underage adolescents). "

Yes, pedophilia is being mentioned, it really needed to be defined. In this case I was referring to anyone under the age of 18, but in other cases I use it to refer to exclusive attraction to prepubescent children. I think there is a case to be made to distinguish between those that are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children, and those that have a continum of attraction that spans from adults to children.

As for the number of people who are engage in sexual activity with people under the age of 18, there must millions of them. First because of the figures, here and here, that suggest that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused by the age of 18. As well this article indicates, there were 250,000 members on from one country (Britain) on one child porno website. This problem is quite large judging by the population of potential pedophiles (<18), but any attempts at looking at the problem scientifically is met with hostility unless the scientists tow the line. Progress cannot be made in such an environment.

Remember that in the USA, illegal child porn is only pictures whose production actually involved the sexual abuse of children- not just ones that look that way.

That's not true. I wish I could find a link to the story, but one guy was convicted of posession of child porn because of some fictional story he wrote that involved children. It was on one of the wire services some months ago. Also, Ashcroft does not distinguish between the real and the unreal.

"It is widely believed that the incidence of reoffending of serious sexual offenders is very much higher than studies such as this, which only count reconvictions, may suggest. However, by how much reconviction rates under-represent the true rate of reoffending remains at present a matter of speculation. For instance, the fact that there are a large number of hidden sexual victimizations does not tell us what proportion of such offences is being committed with impunity by already convicted sexual offenders. It is well known that there is a strong relationship between frequency of offending and the probability of being reconvicted at some time. On the other hand , it is important to recognize that one cannot infer from (a) the fact that some offenders when arrested admit to a large number of hidden offences over a long period of time; that (b) the majority of released sex offenders who have not been reconvicted are also 'hidden' multiple offenders. As Grubin (1998)(4.) has pointed out, it is probable that predatory sex offenders who commit offences against a very large number of victims 'are not typical'. Furthermore, the longer offenders are followed-up the more likely it will be that hitherto hidden offending will come to light through convictions."