Awesome deflect.

You're contributing to the problem, Ken.

Maybe I missed it:

What did Dr. Fred Berlin say when he was asked what his motive was for studying pedophilia so intently?

I know that this is very disturbing theme for discussion and could be more than triggering so please take care for yourself and try not to read it if there is risk of emerging many negative emotions, flashbacks and similar...


Don't know what all Dr. Berlin said but I really wonder about possibility of treatment and what are main difficulties and if there is some progress in this field.
It is obvious that catching abusers after damage is done many times doesn't work to protect us. I would like to hear that there is much more done...


I've checked Wikipedia's definition of sociopathy (actually psychopathy) and there something I spotted that sounds more than terrible for me:
"A 2011 study of conditional releases for Canadian male federal offenders found that psychopathy was related to more violent and non-violent offences but not more sexual offences. For child molesters, psychopathy was associated with more offences. Despite "their extensive criminal histories and high recidivism rate", psychopaths showed "a great proficiency in persuading parole boards to release them into the community." It is purported that high-psychopathy offenders (both sexual and non-sexual offenders) are about 2.5 times more likely to be granted conditional release compared to non-psychopathic offenders."

here is the source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#cite_note-59
https://people.ok.ubc.ca/stporter/Public...20offenders.pdf

I don't know what to say about this alarming finding

Pero

My thoughts on this thread:

I think that understanding the differences and overlaps between pedophiles, sociopaths, etc, are important in the long run for improving society's ability to prevent more abuse.

I think dispassionate academic discussions are a useful tool in parsing through complicated subjects.

I think emotion adds drive to a topic but clouds reason. I think when one is in the middle of a hurting situation, one needs to watch oneself regarding lashing out at others.

I think its important that people are able to speak their mind, no matter what their opinion, without being afraid that they are going to get the internet equivalent of being attacked. That doesn't foster a safe environment or useful conversation. It certainly makes me think twice about sharing.

I think its important that people are able to speak their mind, no matter what their opinion, without being afraid that they are going to get the internet equivalent of being attacked. That doesn't foster a safe environment or useful conversation. It certainly makes me think twice about sharing.

Well I hope that dissent and varying angles won't cause you to stop posting.

I want to point out one other aspect of the thread if I may...

The NAMBLA types come to this site and look for bits of "evidence" in the form of our posts, stories, etc., that justify their "position." They seek evidence to support the "SEE??? SEE THAT??? He liked it" garbage...even if they take it out of context. Or even, "oh....poor little guy had a shitty family and a nice man came along to..."

Just wanted to point that out while the thread continues.

Hi NAMBA-types!..you slack-jawed, drooling, kiddie-porn, jerk-offs. Your life is a mistake!

Still -- crazy people will always be able to find evidence for their delusions. Its not worth it to change what we say for their sake, because they will always find something to twist.

Canuck -- is your repeating what I said word for word just your way of agreeing with me or there something I'm missing? It just confused me a little.

I'm focusing on Dr. Berlin's interview article, which is all I criticized in the earlier post. As I read it, I had a discouraging sense of "deja lu" [= already read]. It reminded me of the diversionary tactics used by Catholic church clergy and lawyers when yet another abuse scandal comes at them.

And I think the whole attempt to paint CSA as just another possibly acceptable "sexual orientation" is dangerously NAMBLA-like. The NAMBLA line was that their "boy-loving" did no harm to children--it was "society's" response that harmed the children. How many times have we heard that from priests and other men when they're caught abusing kids?

Also, calling CSA (even with a fancy Greek name) just another "orientation" is a calumny on others who are struggling against prejudice towards their sexual orientations.

John

Jacob:

I was hoping you'd read what you wrote.

"Its not worth it to change what we say for their sake, because they will always find something to twist."

.