Pedophilic Paranoia? (part 1) - Page 2

xoxoxoBruce · 08-22-2006, 09:09 PM

Good point, Stormie. Sex offender is a catch all label for a hundred different things. They're not all a threat to children or anyone else.

I'm sure the government can always be depended on to pass some stupid feel good laws. Hey, lets shut down the internet...that would stop the perverts.

Sundae · 08-23-2006, 07:33 AM

The school closest to me does not allow any photos or video recordings at school events now. Which seems sad to me. My Dad has years of our school sports days on cine film (transferred to dvd now, I do miss the smell of burning dust when watching them!), country dancing shows and school plays.

Then again we have pictures in our photo albums of us in the bath and standing up in our cots naked - I doubt you could even get those developed now.

I don't mean to downplay the threat - perhaps I would feel different if I had children - but it does seem to be an over-reaction to me (the above, not the real concern voiced in the original article).

Pangloss62 · 08-23-2006, 08:58 AM

Pedophilia is a social construction. I know this from going to university and taking a course on sexuality in ancient Athens. I dug up the book we used to understand all of this and found this helpful quote:

"Kenneth Dover and Michel Foucault have argued that the modern dichotomization of sexuality as heterosexuality/homosexuality does not apply to the ancient world, and they have shown how distinctions between active and passive roles in male sexuality defined the contours of the permissible and impermissible in paederastic courtship and other forms forms of homoerotic behavior."

So, you see, it's all natural, and 9th's categorization of paederasty as "grotesque" is just his personal and subjective opinion, while history shows that what we call "pedophilia" is both normal and natural in human society.

Undertoad · 08-23-2006, 09:06 AM

I've read that most offenses against children happen from people they know or family members. I'm no parent but I am skeptical about installing extreme paranoia of strangers into all the society's children. I think this will fail to solve the problem (thus urging even more paranoia), and then create brand-new problems.

glatt · 08-23-2006, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I've read that most offenses against children happen from people they know or family members. I'm no parent but I am skeptical about installing extreme paranoia of strangers into all the society's children. I think this will fail to solve the problem (thus urging even more paranoia), and then create brand-new problems.

Yeah. I think that's true. It's a question of access.

Reminds me of a "fact" they kept beating into our heads when I was in driver's education years ago. Most accidents happen within a short distance of your house. They were trying to tell us that it was more dangerous near our own homes. They never mentioned that most of your driving is done centered around your house, and logically most accidents will be there.

Hoof Hearted · 08-23-2006, 01:46 PM

I've worked for two Sheriff Offices (secretary), one in WA State and one here in Georgia. To my understanding, every office keeps an updated book on local sex offenders that is available to the public.

The laws about sex offenders not living or being in certain areas, while certainly difficult to actively ENFORCE, actually make for more charges against the offender when one is caught WITHIN those off-limit boundaries.

The comment of making a sex offender 'unable to perform' is not (IMO) a valid solution. Many offenders are sexual in nature, but not sexual in personal assult. Many receive gratification from the power exerted, not neccessarily over the actual sexual act.

I used to register the offenders in WA State. The scariest thing was how Next-Door-Neighbor-NORMAL they looked.

hh

Happy Monkey · 08-23-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

Reminds me of a "fact" they kept beating into our heads when I was in driver's education years ago. Most accidents happen within a short distance of your house. They were trying to tell us that it was more dangerous near our own homes. They never mentioned that most of your driving is done centered around your house, and logically most accidents will be there.

I don't think that's the point of that statistic. The issue is that you can get complacent when "it's just a short trip", and be less alert, or skip the seat belt, etc.

glatt · 08-23-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I don't think that's the point of that statistic. The issue is that you can get complacent when "it's just a short trip", and be less alert, or skip the seat belt, etc.

Now that you mention it, that was their point. But the statistics don't necessarily back that up. You drive more miles near your home than far away from your home, so you are more likely to have an accident near your home. Their message is a good one, just not really backed up by their figures in a risk per mile driven basis.

Tancred · 08-23-2006, 04:12 PM

I think people make too big a deal about sex with kids. We keep telling them and ourselves that if an older person has sex with you you will suffer forever. That's bullshit. Why obsess over a physical act? It's the same with rape. I hear women talk about how "devastated" they were after being raped; why can't they just forget about it? And as long as the pedophile uses lubricant, even anal sex is not that harmful. Everybody is a victim these days.

glatt · 08-23-2006, 05:32 PM

Can an entire thread be deleted before the Cellar starts getting swamped with fucking sickos like the one above? I can only imagine what kind of Google search phrases are leading to the Cellar now because of this thread.

Stormieweather · 08-23-2006, 05:49 PM

Ugh...I'm with Glatt on this one.

Clodfobble · 08-23-2006, 05:58 PM

Me too.

Undertoad · 08-23-2006, 06:03 PM

Don't panic: the original article which makes up the bulk of Google fodder, is currently the 5th most linked-to article on the NY Times. That means it starts with a few hundred syndicated versions on the web, typically at news sites with much higher rankings, and most other versions will be linked-to much more often, making THEM the higher-rated links.

We cannot be afraid to talk about stuff, even offensive stuff. If it's personally revealing or hurtful to people here that's another matter, but we can't be afraid of Google or any other site.

Hoof Hearted · 08-23-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tancred

I think people make too big a deal about sex with kids. We keep telling them and ourselves that if an older person has sex with you you will suffer forever. That's bullshit. Why obsess over a physical act? It's the same with rape. I hear women talk about how "devastated" they were after being raped; why can't they just forget about it? And as long as the pedophile uses lubricant, even anal sex is not that harmful. Everybody is a victim these days.

C'mere...I've got a lubricant and a baseball bat for ya... Let's see how soon YOU forget.

08-22-2006, 09:09 PM	#16
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Good point, Stormie. Sex offender is a catch all label for a hundred different things. They're not all a threat to children or anyone else. I'm sure the government can always be depended on to pass some stupid feel good laws. Hey, lets shut down the internet...that would stop the perverts. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-23-2006, 07:33 AM	#17
Sundae polaroid of perfection Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 24,185	The school closest to me does not allow any photos or video recordings at school events now. Which seems sad to me. My Dad has years of our school sports days on cine film (transferred to dvd now, I do miss the smell of burning dust when watching them!), country dancing shows and school plays. Then again we have pictures in our photo albums of us in the bath and standing up in our cots naked - I doubt you could even get those developed now. I don't mean to downplay the threat - perhaps I would feel different if I had children - but it does seem to be an over-reaction to me (the above, not the real concern voiced in the original article). __________________ Life's hard you know, so strike a pose on a Cadillac

08-23-2006, 08:58 AM	#18
Pangloss62 Lecturer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Atlanta Posts: 768	Look To The Greeks Pedophilia is a social construction. I know this from going to university and taking a course on sexuality in ancient Athens. I dug up the book we used to understand all of this and found this helpful quote: "Kenneth Dover and Michel Foucault have argued that the modern dichotomization of sexuality as heterosexuality/homosexuality does not apply to the ancient world, and they have shown how distinctions between active and passive roles in male sexuality defined the contours of the permissible and impermissible in paederastic courtship and other forms forms of homoerotic behavior." So, you see, it's all natural, and 9th's categorization of paederasty as "grotesque" is just his personal and subjective opinion, while history shows that what we call "pedophilia" is both normal and natural in human society. __________________ Things are never as good, or bad, as they seem.

08-23-2006, 01:46 PM	#21
Hoof Hearted ...you smell something? Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Monroe, GA Posts: 420	I've worked for two Sheriff Offices (secretary), one in WA State and one here in Georgia. To my understanding, every office keeps an updated book on local sex offenders that is available to the public. The laws about sex offenders not living or being in certain areas, while certainly difficult to actively ENFORCE, actually make for more charges against the offender when one is caught WITHIN those off-limit boundaries. The comment of making a sex offender 'unable to perform' is not (IMO) a valid solution. Many offenders are sexual in nature, but not sexual in personal assult. Many receive gratification from the power exerted, not neccessarily over the actual sexual act. I used to register the offenders in WA State. The scariest thing was how Next-Door-Neighbor-NORMAL they looked. hh __________________ I have the ability of single-minded determination and focu...Hey, look! A horse!

08-23-2006, 05:49 PM	#26
Stormieweather Wearing her bitch boots Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Floriduh Posts: 1,181	Ugh...I'm with Glatt on this one. __________________ "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

08-23-2006, 09:06 AM	#19
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I've read that most offenses against children happen from people they know or family members. I'm no parent but I am skeptical about installing extreme paranoia of strangers into all the society's children. I think this will fail to solve the problem (thus urging even more paranoia), and then create brand-new problems.

08-23-2006, 04:12 PM	#24
Tancred Kinda New Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1	I think people make too big a deal about sex with kids. We keep telling them and ourselves that if an older person has sex with you you will suffer forever. That's bullshit. Why obsess over a physical act? It's the same with rape. I hear women talk about how "devastated" they were after being raped; why can't they just forget about it? And as long as the pedophile uses lubricant, even anal sex is not that harmful. Everybody is a victim these days.

08-23-2006, 05:32 PM	#25
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	Can an entire thread be deleted before the Cellar starts getting swamped with fucking sickos like the one above? I can only imagine what kind of Google search phrases are leading to the Cellar now because of this thread.

08-23-2006, 05:58 PM	#27
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Me too.

08-23-2006, 06:03 PM	#28
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Don't panic: the original article which makes up the bulk of Google fodder, is currently the 5th most linked-to article on the NY Times. That means it starts with a few hundred syndicated versions on the web, typically at news sites with much higher rankings, and most other versions will be linked-to much more often, making THEM the higher-rated links. We cannot be afraid to talk about stuff, even offensive stuff. If it's personally revealing or hurtful to people here that's another matter, but we can't be afraid of Google or any other site.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)